Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Bom) 1838

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NEELA GOKHALE, J.
Dhanji Dubriya - Applicant
Versus
Union Territory of Daman & Diu and Ors. - Respondent
Bail Application No.4501 of 2025
Decided On : 16-12-2025

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

The court emphasized the accountability of police officials and the seriousness of extortion and abduction charges, asserting that dropping bailable offences without justification undermines the integrity of the judicial process.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 140(2), 308(7), 258, 238, 241, 3(5), 115(2) - Bail Application - Grounds for bail based on charged offences being bailable under the Act - Allegations of police officers involving forced abduction and extortion of money from complainants noted. (Paras 1-8, 7.16, 7.17)

(B) Judicial Discretion - The magistrate can take cognizance of the case independently without being bound by the Investigating Officer's conclusions - Importance of public accountability for law enforcement personnel underscored. (Paras 7.7-7.18)

Facts of the case:
The Applicant, a police officer, along with co-accused, allegedly extorted money from the complainants under the pretext of investigating a liquor-related incident. The FIR was originally filed under non-bailable offences, but these were later dropped in the charge sheet.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the actions of the accused constituted serious offences against public trust and safety, underscoring that police misconduct erodes the integrity of the justice system.

Issues: The main issues discussed were the validity of dropping the non-bailable offence from the charge sheet and the appropriateness of bail in light of the context of police power abuse.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the dropping of serious charges lacked justification, highlighting the ongoing obligation of police officers to uphold the law, and recognized the magistrate's prerogative to make independent assessments away from the Investigating Officer's opinions.

Result: Bail Application rejected.

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 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 a Police Officer namely the PSI, Crime Branch, Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu.

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 Another neighbor, Bhavin called Aajessh 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