CW-2024-0021Rajgarh, Madhya PradeshJudgment 21 November 2024

Biaora Police Assistant Sub-Inspector vs State of Madhya Pradesh

The judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court records the following account. Assistant Sub-Inspector Omprakash Mishra and Constable Naval Singh Meena of Biaora Police Station, Rajgarh, were prosecuted for demanding and accepting illegal gratification to release complainant [name withheld]'s nephew [name withheld] from unlawful police custody. During a Lokayukta trap on October 14, 2009, Mishra accepted Rs. 6,500 in tainted currency, handed it to Constable, and both fled on a motorcycle while brandishing a service revolver at the trap team. The Special Judge, Rajgarh, convicted both under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced them to two years rigorous imprisonment. The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) dismissed their appeals, holding that the demand and trap were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Externally reportedV2
What this record means

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 →

Report card

By judgment dated 21 November 2024 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 483 of 2014 & 505 of 2014, the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: Subodh Abhyankar, J.) affirmed the conviction of 2 police personnel, namely: Omprakash Mishra (Assistant Sub-Inspector); Naval Singh Meena (Constable).

Register number
MP 39 CW 0001
Case reference
Criminal Appeal Nos. 483 of 2014 & 505 of 2014 / 2024:MPHC-IND:33084
Court and date
Madhya Pradesh High Court (Coram: Subodh Abhyankar, J.), 21 November 2024
Officer(s) at the material time
Omprakash Mishra (Assistant Sub-Inspector); Naval Singh Meena (Constable)
Present service status
Not ascertained from the cited sources.
Provisions invoked
Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Finding of the Court (extract)
“In such circumstances, so far as the demand of bribe is concerned, it stands proved against the appellant [name withheld].” (at para 22)
Verdict, sentence and quantum
Conviction upheld. Sentence: imprisonment and fine; maximum substantive term of 2 years.
Present status of the proceedings
No further proceedings are recorded in the cited sources; the judgment is the concluded position shown.

Compiled from the judgment and the cited sources. Findings are those of the court; this card adds none of its own.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment dated 21 November 2024 is the concluded position shown in the cited sources.

Recorded allegations

1
OtherPrimary
Material fact supported

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.

What the court found

Holding not recorded separately.

“In such circumstances, so far as the demand of bribe is concerned, it stands proved against the appellant [name withheld].” (para 22)

Institutional response

2
Date not established

Conviction

Concluded
Trial court (as recorded in the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment) External · Binding

The trial court convicted the accused police personnel, as recorded in the Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment.

Conviction · Supports allegation.
Source: 2024:MPHC-IND:33084
Not yet re-checked.
21 Nov 2024

Order issued

Concluded
Madhya Pradesh High Court External · Binding

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions of police personnel.

Conviction · Supports allegation (appellate affirmance; trial conviction separate card).
Source: 2024:MPHC-IND:33084
Not yet re-checked.

Follow-up history

1
19 Sep 2026

(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.

Keep exploring

These records are listed together because they share a state or a topic. That does not mean they are connected.