The judgment of the Bombay High Court records the following account. At about 2 a.m. on the night of 5-6 May 2018, Newasa police searched the petitioner's house without a search warrant and recovered nothing objectionable; the petitioner alleged an attempt to plant a country-made pistol and threats of false implication. The court found no written record of any secret information and no compliance with section 165 CrPC, though most officers were shown on different duties that night. It held the search illegal, an intrusion into privacy under Article 21 that defamed the entire family. The writ was partly allowed with Rs 25,000 compensation to be deposited by the Government within 45 days (8% interest on delay), with liberty to fix responsibility and recover from the officers; prosecution was not directed as section 197 CrPC sanction would be needed. 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 29 November 2019 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 25 of 2019, the Bombay High Court (Coram: T. V. Nalawade, S. M. Gavhane, JJ.) returned findings adverse to 13 police personnel, namely: Police Constable, Newasa Police Station; Police Inspector, Kopargaon Police Station; Police personnel, S.D.P.O. Office, Ahmednagar Rural; Police personnel, Killa Police Station, Malegaon; Police personnel, Newasa Police Station; Police personnel, Newasa Police Station; Police personnel, Belwandi Police Station, Newasa; Police personnel, Newasa Police Station; Police personnel, Newasa Police Station; Police personnel, Newasa Police Station; Police personnel, Newasa Police Station; Police personnel, Newasa Police Station; Police personnel, Newasa Police Station, and directed payment of compensation of Rs 25,000.
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 29 November 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.
“This Court holds that the action of the police officers was illegal. This Court has no hesitation to hold that the State is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner for such illegal action.” (para 19)
The Bombay High Court recorded adverse findings against police personnel and ordered Rs 25,000.
(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.
