The Bombay High Court has rejected the bail plea of three Crime Branch constables from Daman who have been accused of abducting a group of friends from Surat, and extorting ₹7 lakh from them.
Dismissing the bail application filed by Ramdevsinh Jadeja, Vishal Mir and Chintan Arvindbhai Desai, Justice Neela Gokhale observed that the allegations were “grave and serious”, holding that the magistrate had rightly taken cognisance of their non-bailable offences. The order was pronounced on December 16.
The case stems from a first information report (FIR) registered at the Coastal Police Station in Kadaiya, Daman, this year, under Sections 140(2), 308(7) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The FIR says that on August 25, complainant Aajessh Patel and his friends were intercepted while travelling to Daman, taken to police headquarters, slapped, and threatened with false cases, unless they paid ₹25 lakh. The amount was later negotiated to ₹10 lakh, and ₹7 lakh was allegedly handed over near a Hyundai showroom before their release.
‘Detention is not abduction’
Appearing for the applicants, senior advocate Manoj Mohite argued, “The offences under which the Applicants and the Co-accused are charged are all bailable offences and hence, as of right, the applicants deserve to be enlarged on bail.” He contended that Section 140(2) was “appropriately dropped” during investigation and added, “If an officer detains someone for investigation, that does not constitute abduction, even if the person detained is later found innocent.”
Mr. Mohite further submitted, “It is the complainant and his friends who offered money to the Police and no demand was made by the Police personnel. They were not detained as they were allowed to move freely in the Headquarters.”
Opposing the plea, advocate Shreyas Uday Lalit, for the complainant, said: “The entire facts narrated in the FIR clearly establish illegal abduction without sufficient and justifiable cause, releasing them only on receiving the ransom as demanded. The ingredients of Section 140(2) of the BNS are adequately made out.”
He pointed out that the Daman magistrate had already taken cognisance of offences under Sections 140(2) and 308(2), both non-bailable. “The bail Court is not bound by an errant investigation,” he said. Mr. Lalit also submitted that the act attracts Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Narrative ‘eyewash’
Rejecting the plea, Justice Gokhale cited Supreme Court rulings to underline that a magistrate is not bound by the investigating officer’s opinion, “The Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation, and take cognizance of the case.”
The magistrate’s order dated October 20, which remains unchallenged, amounted to taking cognizance of Section 140(2), punishable with death or life imprisonment and fine, and Section 308(2) for extortion.
The judge flagged contradictions in the investigation, “Strangely, on the same date, the same officer conveyed to the Magistrate that further investigation established offences under Section 140(2), yet filed the charge sheet under bailable sections. The entire conduct of the investigating agency is thus, questionable.”
The court also described the UT’s claim of “sterling investigation” as “a mere attempt to eye-wash the narrative before this Court.”
Higher standards
On the gravity of the offence, Justice Gokhale observed, “Crimes by police officials themselves, therefore, undermine the integrity of the entire justice system, erodes public confidence and compromises the fairness of legal proceedings. Law enforcement personnel are held to higher ethical and legal standard than ordinary citizens because their job requires public accountability and adherence to the law that they enforce.”
The court recorded that the accused had attempted to derail the probe by feigning illness and destroying electronic evidence, “They would immediately start to inflict injuries on themselves discreetly, vomited so that they can be immediately taken for medical examination, turn to the places where CCTV cameras are placed and start shouting.”
It noted that mobile phone data was deleted and recoveries included Apple AirPods and documents from the Crime Branch office.
Concluding that prima facie offences taken cognizance by the magistrate are made out, and considering the risk of tampering and intimidation, the court said, “The conduct of the applicants and the co-accused does not inspire confidence in this Court that they are not likely to tamper with evidence, and intimidate witnesses if enlarged on bail.”
The order added, “This is not a fit case to enlarge the applicants on bail. The bail application is thus, rejected.”
Published – December 18, 2025 07:56 pm IST
