The Bombay High Court held that PSI of Navghar Police Station took two senior citizens, a Mumbai man (66) and a Mumbai woman (62) a Mumbai man, into custody at Aurangabad on the night of 2 December 2011 in a s.498A case and kept them detained without showing arrest until 4 December 2011, about 35 hours 40 minutes, without an arrest memo or production before the nearest magistrate. The Court found gross violations of Articles 21 and 22 and the D.K. Basu directions, a violation that shocks the conscience of the Court. It directed the State to pay Rs 2,50,000 each with 8% interest plus Rs 25,000 costs, ordered a Joint/Additional Commissioner inquiry within three months to fix responsibility, and left recovery and departmental action open. 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 21 December 2012 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 856 of 2012, the Bombay High Court (Coram: A. S. Oka, S. S. Shinde, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 4 police personnel, namely: Sub-Inspector, Navghar Police Station, Mumbai; Senior Inspector, Navghar Police Station, Mumbai; Police Constable, Navghar Police Station, Mumbai (Buckle No. 97015); Police Constable, Navghar Police Station, Mumbai (Buckle No. 8040305), and directed payment of compensation of Rs 5 lakh (Rs 5,00,000).
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 21 December 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.
“This case of blatant violation of human rights shocks the conscience of the Court.” (para 13)
The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 500,000.
(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.
