The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. The petitioner, born 3 January 2001 and aged about 15 when robbery cases under Section 394 IPC were registered and when arrested on 26 November 2016, was shown by police as aged 20, remanded to police and magisterial custody on false information, and kept in Yerwada Central Jail as an adult undertrial for 8 months and 25 days across cases in Pune, Aurangabad and Ahmednagar districts. All four police stations filed replies. The Aurangabad Bench held the detention in police and magisterial custody illegal, allowed the petition, and directed Rs. 50,000 compensation within 45 days (8% interest on default). It ordered the police-custody-remand and jail records erased so they are never used against the petitioner in future. 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 30 September 2019 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 651 of 2018, the Bombay High Court (Coram: T.V. Nalawade, K.K. Sonawane, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 4 police personnel, namely: Police Inspector, Hinjewadi City Police Station, Pune; Police Inspector, Gangapur Police Station, Aurangabad; Police Inspector, Lonikand Police Station, Pune Rural; Police Inspector, Sonai Police Station, Ahmednagar, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 50,000.
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 30 September 2019 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.
“His age was shown as 20 years by the police. It is contended that by giving false information, PCR and MCR was obtained against him.” (para 4)
The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 50,000.
(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.
