Sudhakar Yerpude, a Nagpur goldsmith, was picked up by Lakadganj police on 9 February 2002, detained for three days without any arrest record, and released only after handing over gold, silver and Rs 15,000, the court found. He was picked up again by Gittikhadan police on the night of 27 February 2002 and tortured to death in custody, a custodial death the State did not dispute and the CID confirmed, charge-sheeting four policemen for murder. The Division Bench held both detentions violated Articles 21 and 22 and the D.K. Basu safeguards, awarded Rs 8 lakh compensation plus Rs 10,000 costs to the widow and minor children, and permitted recovery from the responsible officers of both police stations. The court stressed the award must deter officers from such illegal acts. Crime No. 76 of 2002 was registered against Sub-Inspector, Head Constables and [name withheld], and Constable, who were arrested on 11 April 2002; the court recorded no finding of guilt against any individual, leaving guilt to the trial. 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 27 January 2005 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 328 of 2002, the Bombay High Court (Coram: J.N. Patel, S.T. Kharche, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 4 police personnel, namely: Police Sub-Inspector, Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur; Head Constable, Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur; Head Constable, Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur; Police Constable, Police Station Gittikhadan, Nagpur, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 8 lakh (Rs 8,00,000).
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
The Bombay High Court judgment dated 27 January 2005 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.
“the compensation, which is to be awarded, should also have a deterrent effect on the State so that its officers should not be encouraged to indulge in such illegal acts” (para null -> '32')
The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 800,000.
(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.
