Babuwatch A Data Libertarian Project
CW-2009-0012Gurdaspur, PunjabJudgment 2 March 2009

Batala Man vs State of Punjab and Others

The judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court records the following account. FIR No.146 is dated 13.06.1992 (PS Sadar Batala, ss 25/54/59 Arms Act) — i.e. arrest shown a day BEFORE the alleged 14.6.1992 pickup, not 'later shown arrested'. Reword to: '...while the police showed him arrested in FIR No.146 dated 13.6.1992 under the Arms Act (PS Sadar Batala).'. Matters not addressed in the cited judgment text are not recorded here.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

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

How verification works →
Detailed record

Report card

By judgment dated 2 March 2009 in Criminal Misc. No. 19560-M of 2002, the Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.) returned findings adverse to 2 police personnel, namely: SHO, Police Station Rangar Nangal, Batala; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Punjab Police (recovery party), and directed payment of compensation of Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).

Register number
PB 06 CW 0004
Case reference
Criminal Misc. No. 19560-M of 2002
Court and date
Punjab and Haryana High Court (Coram: Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.), 2 March 2009
Officer(s) at the material time
SHO, Police Station Rangar Nangal, Batala; Deputy Superintendent of Police, Punjab Police (recovery party)
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959; Section 54 of the Arms Act, 1959; Section 59 of the Arms Act, 1959
Finding of the Court (extract)
“A Batala man, son of the petitioner, aged 20 years was in custody of the police. The police was duty bound to ensure safety to his life.”
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 3 lakh (Rs 3,00,000).
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.

Current position

The Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated 2 March 2009 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Evidence position

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.

Attributed to the court

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“A Batala man, son of the petitioner, aged 20 years was in custody of the police. The police was duty bound to ensure safety to his life.”
Separate from verification

Institutional response

1
2 Mar 2009

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 300,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: Criminal Misc. No. 19560-M of 2002
Not yet re-checked.
Continuing record

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.