Order issued
ConcludedThe Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.
The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court records the following account. A Moinabad man was arrested by Moinabad and Narsingi police on suspicion of murdering his missing brother-in-law, detained unlawfully across different police stations for 42 days, and subjected to severe custodial torture including being kicked with boots and forced to drink urine to extract a confession. The torture ceased only after the supposedly deceased brother-in-law was found alive and working in a factory. On a taken-up writ petition prompted by a press report, the High Court directed an enquiry by the District Judge, which confirmed the illegal detention and brutal third-degree torture by the Inspector, Sub-Inspector, and constables. The High Court ordered the State to pay Rs 1,00,000 in compensation to the victim, with liberty to recover the sum from the guilty police officers, and directed the Superintendent of Police to initiate departmental and criminal proceedings. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.
This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.
How verification works →By judgment dated 20 November 2001, the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Coram: S.B. Sinha, J.) returned findings adverse to 4 police personnel, namely: Inspector of Police, Narsingi Police Circle; Sub-Inspector of Police, Moinabad Police Station; Head Constable (HC 469), Moinabad Police Station; Constable (PC 1754), Moinabad Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 1 lakh (Rs 1,00,000).
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment dated 20 November 2001 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.
Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.
Official finding: supports allegation.
Holding not recorded separately.
“A case is made out that a Moinabad man was detained for 42 days. It is also the finding of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy, that the officers named hereinabove practised atrocities and ill-treatment against a Moinabad …” (para 10)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 100,000.
(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))
Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.
Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.
These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.