Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1831

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NEELA GOKHALE, J.
Krishna Vijay Gohil - Applicant
Versus
Union Territory of Daman & Diu and Ors. - Respondent
Bail Application No. 4518 of 2025
Decided On : 16-12-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Rushi Bhuta a/w Ms. Khushboo Shah a/w Mr. Parth Govilkar a/w Ms. Vaishnavi Javheri a/w Ms. Karishma Rajesh a/w Mr. Pratham R. Jain a/w Ms. Ankita Bamboli a/w Ms. Bhavi Kapoor 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, Advocate

The court underscored that serious allegations against police personnel warrant higher accountability and that bail may be denied when fundamental rights and public trust are at stake.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 140(2), 308(7), 3(5), 241, 115(2), 258 - Bail Application - Applicant, a Police Head Constable, and co-accused arrested for alleged extortion and abduction, claim all charges have been dropped except for bailable offences - High Court finds serious allegations substantiated, with Complainant detailing intimidation, demand for ransom and physical assault upon them - Legal authority for police to arrest under suspicion is balanced with the rights of individuals against unlawful detention - Issues of public trust and integrity of police are paramount, especially where alleged crimes are committed by law enforcement officials - Bail rejected by Court. (Paras 2.1, 7.17, 7.18)

JUDGMENT: -

NEELA GOKHALE, J.

1. The Applicant seeks his 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 directed the Complainant and his friends to accompany them to the Police Station. The Complainant and his friends, intimidated by the Police, acted as per their instructions and followed them to the Police Headquarters. These persons, were none other than Police Constables, Head Constable and a Police Officer from the Crime Branch, Daman, Union Territory of Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. The Applicant is the Head Constable.

2.2 The Complainant and his friends were made to sit in a room on the ground floor of the Police Headquarters, their mobile phones were seized, they were taken to an upstairs room, slapped a couple of times and interrogated. Another Police Officer arrived whose presence was intended to further intimidate them. The Complainant showed to the Police the receipt of the purchase of liquor, however, the Police deliberately declared it as a fake and threatened to implicate them in offences punishable with 14 years of imprisonment. The Complainant and his friends, getting a drift of the intent of the Police personnel and, out of fear, offered to pay some money for their release. The Applicant and others immediately demanded an amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- as a price for releasing the Complainant and his friends.

2.3 Another Police Officer arrived to negotiate with the Complainant since the Complainant conveyed his inability to raise such a huge amount. Finally, the Complainant was told to arrange an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-. His mobile phone was returned to him to enable him to call his relatives/friends. The call was monitored by the Police on the speaker mode. The Complainant first called his mother who did not answer, hence, he called his friend, Vicky Patel and requested him to inform his mother the requirement of Rs.10,00,000/- for his release in a liquor case.

2.4 A neighbour, Bhavin, called Aajessh-Complainant on Vicky’s phone and assured him that they were arranging the money and later at around 8 pm, conveyed that they were leaving with the money. The Police demanded the live location of Vicky and Bhavin and were monitoring their location through calls. When Vicky reached Daman, three Police personnel left the Headquarters with the Complainant; two sat with the Complainant in the Innova, while another followed on a Splendor bike. The Complainant was directed to tell Vicky to hand over the money to persons following the Innova in a Swift car. Bhavin refused to hand over the money to any person other than the Complainant and mentioned that he was able to manage only Rs. 5,00,000/-.

2.5 The Police were hearing the conversation on speaker phone and expressed anger at the deficit amount and reiterated their demand. Ultimately, Bhavin agreed to pay Rs. 7,00,000/- immediately and balance Rs. 3,00,000/- on the next day. The Police acce