The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. Police raided card games at the Andheri Gymkhana on 10 August 2011 and detained 17 people, including senior citizens and two women, at Andheri police station from 9:30 pm till 6 am without food, toilet access or medicines. The Court held the bridge and rummy games were games of skill excluded from the Gambling Act, and that detaining the two women after sunset without a magistrate's permission breached section 46(4) CrPC along with sections 54, 55A and 60. It found the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 21 violated by the highhanded, procedurally improper raid and detention. The State was directed to pay Rs 1,000 to each petitioner plus Rs 25,000 each to the two women, though the Court declined a departmental inquiry as the officers acted bona fide. 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 25 June 2012 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1006 of 2012, the Bombay High Court (Coram: V. M. Kanade, P. D. Kode, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 4 police personnel, namely: Police Inspector, Andheri Police Station; Police Sub-Inspector, Andheri Police Station; Police Sub-Inspector, Andheri Police Station; Police Constable, Andheri Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 67,000.
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 25 June 2012 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.
“Respondent Nos. 5 to 8 have clearly violated provisions of section 46(4), section 54, section 55A read with section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and, as such, the fundamental rights of the Petitioners under Article 21 of the …” (para 27)
The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 67,000.
(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.
