Dhanji Dubriya vs Union Territory of Daman & Diu

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1838

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NEELA GOKHALE
Dhanji Dubriya – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Daman & Diu – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, Senior Advocate (through VC) a/w Mr. Vivek Rane i/b. Mr. Vivek Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ashwin Thool a/w Mr. Ayush Singh a/w Archishmati Chandramore, Advocate Mr. Shreyas Uday Lalit a/w Mr. Varun Thokal a/w Mr. Aditya Singh i/b. Mr. Varun Thokal

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points relevant to the bail application are as follows:

The offences initially registered under the FIR included non-bailable sections, but during investigation and in the final charge sheet, these non-bailable offences were dropped, leaving only bailable offences (!) (!) .
The investigation revealed that the police personnel, including the Applicant, allegedly engaged in acts of abduction, intimidation, and extortion, with evidence such as witness statements, identification by the complainant, seizure of electronic evidence, and CCTV footage (!) (!) (!) .
The charge sheet, which is a crucial document, was filed under sections that are predominantly bailable, and the Magistrate observed that prima facie offences under these sections are made out (!) (!) (!) .
The investigation and sanctioning authorities appear to have exercised their discretion appropriately, with the sanction order indicating awareness of the legal provisions and leaving the decision to the Magistrate to take cognizance of any other offences (!) .
The Magistrate and the investigating authorities have taken cognizance of the offences, and the order rejecting bail was based on the serious nature of the offences, the conduct of the Applicant and others during investigation, and the potential risk of evidence tampering and witness intimidation (!) (!) .
The conduct of the Applicant and co-accused, including attempts to derail investigations, destroy electronic evidence, and feign ill health to avoid interrogation, raises concerns about their likelihood to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses if released on bail (!) (!) .
The offences committed by police personnel in this case are grave and undermine public trust in law enforcement, warranting higher accountability and caution in granting bail (!) .
The Court, considering the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the offences, the conduct of the Applicant during investigation, and the potential risks involved, has ultimately rejected the bail application (!) (!) .

In summary, the Court's decision was based on the serious nature of the offences, the conduct of the Applicant during investigation, the potential for evidence tampering, and the importance of maintaining public confidence in law enforcement.

JUDGMENT:-

NEELA GOKHALE, J.

1. The Applicant seek their release on bail in connection with FIR No. 0039 of 2025 dated 26^th August 2025, registered with the Coastal Police Station, Kadaiya, Daman, for offences punishable under Section 140 (2), 308(7) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘ BNS ’). The Police filed the Final Report No. 37 of 2025, before the JMFC, Daman, on 17^th October 2025. Pertinent to note is that, while filing the Final Report, the investigating agency has dropped the non-bailable offences as initially applied in the FIR and retained only offences punishable under Sections 308 (7), 258, 238, 241, 3(5), 115(2) of the , 2023. Thus, the offences as alleged by the Police against the Applicant and Co-accused in the charge sheet, as on date, are all bailable offences

2. The facts of the case in brief are as under:

2.1 On 25^th August 2025, the Complainant namely, Aajessh Patel and his friends, traveled to Daman from Surat, in an Innova car. They purchased liquor from a wine shop and intended to have a party in a farmhouse. 5 to 6 persons intercepted them, searched their vehicle, and having spotted the liquor, identified themselves to be police officials. They d