The Bombay High Court has rejected the bail applications filed by three Crime Branch constables of the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, accused in a case involving alleged abduction, illegal detention and extortion of ₹10 lakh from a group of tourists.
Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale, while dismissing Bail Application held that the case involved grave and serious allegations against police officials who were expected to uphold the law but were prima facie found to have abused their official position. The Court noted that crimes allegedly committed by law enforcement personnel erode public confidence in the criminal justice system and warrant a higher degree of scrutiny.
The case arises out of an FIR registered at the Coastal Police Station, Kadaiya, Daman. The complainant alleged that he and his friends were intercepted by Crime Branch personnel on 25 August 2025, taken to the police headquarters, assaulted, threatened with false implication in serious offences, and detained until ransom money was arranged and paid. According to the prosecution, the complainant was released only after ₹7 lakh was paid immediately, with an assurance of payment of the balance amount later.
Although the investigating agency dropped the non-bailable offence under Section 140(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (abduction for ransom) in the charge sheet and retained only bailable offences, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Daman, noted on 20 October 2025 that prima facie offences under Sections 140(2) and 308(2) of the BNS were made out and issued notice to the prosecution. This order remained unchallenged.
The High Court held that a Magistrate is not bound by the opinion of the investigating officer in the charge sheet and is empowered to independently apply judicial mind to the material on record while taking cognizance. Relying on recent Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that the police report reflects only the investigating officer’s opinion and does not fetter the Magistrate’s powers.
Justice Gokhale expressed serious concern over inconsistencies in the investigation, particularly the unexplained dropping of Section 140(2) from the charge sheet despite detailed allegations and supporting material in the FIR, remand reports and witness statements. The Court also took note of the discontinuation of the Special Investigation Team midway through the probe and described the investigation’s conduct as questionable.
Emphasising the gravity of the allegations, the Court observed that the accused were members of an elite Crime Branch unit who allegedly intimidated the complainant, confiscated mobile phones, monitored movements of those arranging money, destroyed electronic evidence and attempted to derail the investigation. The Court further noted the likelihood of witness intimidation and evidence tampering if bail were granted.
Holding that a strong prima facie case was made out and that the nature of the offence, the position of the accused, and the apprehension of interference with the investigation weighed against them, the High Court concluded that the case was not fit for grant of bail and dismissed the applications.
Appearances:
For the Applicants: Mr. Manoj Mohite, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Bhavesh i/b. Vivek Pandey, Advocate for Applicants in BA/4519/2025.
For the Respondents 1 & 2 (U.T.) : Mr. Ashwin Thool a/w Mr. Ayush Singh a/w Archishmati Chandramore.
For the Respondents 4/Intervenor: Mr. Shreeyash U. Lalit a/w Mr. Varun Thokal a/w Mr. Aditya Singh i/b. Mr. Varun Thokal.
