The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) held that a Nagpur man, acquitted in his last sessions case on 29 March 2011, was detained in Nagpur Central Prison from the evening of 30 March to the morning of 3 April 2011 without any authority of law. The Court recorded the SP Gadchiroli's admission that Police Constable, tasked with carrying the jail warrant to court and back, was grossly negligent in failing to return the endorsed warrant, and rejected the two-day-travel excuse for the 160 km journey. It ordered the State to pay Rs 20,000 compensation at Rs 5,000 per day and noted a departmental enquiry against the constable would follow. 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 2 August 2011 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 285 of 2011, the Bombay High Court (Coram: V. K. Tahilramani, M. L. Tahaliyani, JJ.) returned findings adverse to the Police Constable, Gadchiroli Police, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 20,000.
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 2 August 2011 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 gross negligence on the part of Police Constable [name withheld] has been admitted by respondent No.2.” (para 7)
The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 20,000.
No published follow-up check has been recorded for this incident.
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.
