CW-2011-0014Nagpur, MaharashtraJudgment 2 August 2011

Ramtek Man & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) held the State liable for the custodial death of Nitin Patil, who died while remanded in custody at Ramtek Police Station on 22 July 2003. Patil had been repeatedly arrested across multiple police stations in successive criminal cases and subjected to continuous custody before being found hanging in the lockup latrine. The High Court observed that the police failed to prove that circumstances surrounding the detainee were normal and that the death, though suicidal, attracted tortious liability. The court directed the State of Maharashtra to pay Rs 2,00,000 as compensation with 6% annual interest and Rs 10,000 costs to the deceased's family. 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 →

Report card

By judgment dated 2 August 2011 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 474 of 2003, the Bombay High Court (Coram: A.H. Joshi, U.V. Bakre, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 3 police personnel, namely: Assistant Police Inspector, Kanhan Police Station; Assistant Police Sub-Inspector, Ramtek Police Station; Police Constable, Ramtek Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000).

Register number
MH 31 CW 0008
Case reference
Criminal Writ Petition No. 474 of 2003 / 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1007
Court and date
Bombay High Court (Coram: A.H. Joshi, U.V. Bakre, JJ.), 2 August 2011
Officer(s) at the material time
Assistant Police Inspector, Kanhan Police Station; Assistant Police Sub-Inspector, Ramtek Police Station; Police Constable, Ramtek Police Station
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Not stated in the cited sources
Finding of the Court (extract)
“In the result, this Court is satisfied that the death, though suicidal, attracts a tortuous liability to the State, though such liability would not be on the same rigours and lines.” (at para 71)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Adverse finding + compensation. Sentence: compensation only. Compensation: Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000).
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.

The Bombay High Court judgment dated 2 August 2011 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.

“In the result, this Court is satisfied that the death, though suicidal, attracts a tortuous liability to the State, though such liability would not be on the same rigours and lines.” (para 71)

Institutional response

1
2 Aug 2011

Order issued

Concluded
Bombay High Court External · Binding

The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.

Compensation ordered · Supports allegation (for the compensated wrong only).
Source: 2011 SCC OnLine Bom 1007
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.