CW-2001-0018Amritsar, PunjabJudgment 26 September 2001

Shahura Man v. State of Punjab and Others

Add the recorded police case: arrest in FIR 21/1988, disclosure statement, escape during arms-recovery escort, FIR 23/1988 s.224, proclaimed offender, exoneration in DC and SP inquiries (paras 2, 4, 7). Drop the false 'police version is not recorded' sentence.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

This page documents a court-adjudicated case from the judgment and cited sources below. Findings are attributed to the court; this record does not add findings of its own.

How verification works →

Report card

By judgment dated 26 September 2001 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1204 of 1997, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: M.L. Singhal, J.) returned findings adverse to 6 police personnel, namely: SHO, PS Lopoke, Amritsar; SHO, PS Gharinda, Amritsar; Head Constable, PS Lopoke escort party; Head Constable, PS Lopoke escort party; Constable, PS Lopoke escort party; Constable, PS Lopoke escort party, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000).

Register number
PB 02 CW 0005
Case reference
Criminal Writ Petition No. 1204 of 1997 / (2002) CriLJ 1082; (2001) 4 RCR (Criminal) 761
Court and date
Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: M.L. Singhal, J.), 26 September 2001
Officer(s) at the material time
SHO, PS Lopoke, Amritsar; SHO, PS Gharinda, Amritsar; Head Constable, PS Lopoke escort party; Head Constable, PS Lopoke escort party; Constable, PS Lopoke escort party; Constable, PS Lopoke escort party
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959; Section 3 of the TADA Act; Section 4 of the TADA Act; Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Finding of the Court (extract)
“Preponderance of probability is in favour of the view that if he had escaped from police custody on 13.2.88, he would have returned to his family after the State terrorism had ceased.” (at para 10)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 1.5 lakh (Rs 1,50,000).
Present status of the proceedings
No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 26 September 2001 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
Custodial deathPrimary
Material fact supported

Reliable material supports a specifically documented fact relevant to that allegation, not necessarily the full allegation, causation, intent, unlawfulness, or responsibility.

Official finding: supports allegation.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“Preponderance of probability is in favour of the view that if he had escaped from police custody on 13.2.88, he would have returned to his family after the State terrorism had ceased.” (para 10)

Institutional response

1
26 Sep 2001

Order issued

Concluded
Punjab and Haryana High Court External · Binding

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 150,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: (2002) CriLJ 1082; (2001) 4 RCR (Criminal) 761
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(Round-8 full re-verification: published record re-checked against the judgment text (outcome, officers, quote, key facts) plus methodology-compliance pass; skills-guided adversarial re-verification of the published record against the judgment text (reverify/t1-*/adversarial-8.jsonl))

Corrections (0): No corrections recorded.

Review: Solo Staff combined review (one combined attestation) — not yet recorded.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.