The Allahabad High Court held that Class-XII student a man was forcibly picked up from his family hotel-cum-photostat shop at Mughalsarai on 27 December 2012 by four constables acting at the behest of respondent [name withheld], illegally confined in the Kotwali lock-up till 29 December, handcuffed, tortured and severely beaten, then falsely implicated in Case Crime No. 412 of 2012. The Court rejected the police version and an ADJ inquiry that minimised the injuries, holding the confinement, handcuffing and torture showed police high-handedness against a school-going boy. It held the State had failed in its duty to protect innocents from police atrocities. It partly allowed the petition and awarded Rs 2 lakh exemplary compensation payable by the State within one month. 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 20 January 2017 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11422 of 2013, the Allahabad High Court (Coram: Ramesh Sinha, Rekha Dikshit, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 5 police personnel, namely: Circle Officer (C.O. Sadar), PS Kotwali Mughalsarai; Constable, PS Kotwali Mughalsarai; Constable, PS Kotwali Mughalsarai; Constable, PS Kotwali Mughalsarai; Constable, PS Kotwali Mughalsarai, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 2 lakh (Rs 2,00,000).
Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.
The Allahabad High Court judgment dated 20 January 2017 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 illegal confinement, handcuffing and torture of the petitioner in police lock-up by respondent nos. 4 to 8 shows the highhandedness of the police personnel, hence the said act and conduct of said respondents is not appreciable as by the …” (para 17)
The Allahabad High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 200,000.
(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.
