While observing that citizens look askance and are left in a dilemma when law enforcers turn extortionists, the Supreme Court has cancelled the anticipatory bail of three Railway Police Officers accused of misusing authority & extorting money from passengers carrying a gold bar.

The case before the Apex Court revolved around an incident where three police officials were accused of subjecting a man and his minor daughter to undue stress and allegedly extracting money.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran stated, “When law enforcers turn extortionists, the citizen looks askance and is left in a dilemma. To confront, is to invite instant retaliation and the option is only to succumb meekly to the uniformed authority, even when there is patent abuse.”

“The High Court in the instant case granted anticipatory bail to the three respondents, who are accused of misusing their authority subjecting a man and his minor daughter to undue stress and allegedly extracting money to save them of further action with respect to a gold bar found in their baggage”, it added.

Advocate Bharat Bagla represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S Choudhari represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The de facto complainant, with his daughter, travelling from Mumbai in the Hapa Duronto Express, accompanied by his brother-in-law, was detained by police personnel of the sabotage-detection detail at the railway station. While searching the passenger’s baggage, a gold bar of 14 grams and cash of Rs 31,900 were detected. Allegedly, despite giving a satisfactory explanation, one of the uniformed men took the passenger along with the child and the brother-in-law to a nearby room, wherein they were intimidated and verbally abused, forcing them to part with cash, for restoring the gold without taking further action.

The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application for anticipatory bail. The High Court allowed the same by a cryptic order after viewing the CCTV footage collected in the course of investigation, finding the accused to be wearing identity cards, the de facto complainant and his daughter showing no signs of distress, coupled with the delay in lodging the FIR and unblemished service of the accused.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the CCTV footage, the Bench noted that the de facto complainant with the child and another adult were detained by two police men who were carrying out a routine search on the railway station, having been posted there on a security detail under the Anti-Sabotage Unit of the Railway Police. “We can see from the footage that after search, the two adults and a child were taken to a room and after a few minutes, only the adults and the child emerged. We are surprised that the High Court observed that there is no sign of distress on them, especially when their expressions are not clear in the footage. We also notice that the two adults were moving ahead, one of them gesturing frantically with his hands while the child was trailing behind: a definite indication of distress”, it added.

According to the Bench, the time they spent inside the closed room was sufficient for the police men to carry out the complained-of actions. The Bench further noted that the de facto complainant was taken into a closed room where there was no CCTV. The search conducted was to be recorded in a register, the certified copy of which, issued by the Mumbai Railway Commissionerate, did not indicate the name of the de facto complainant. “One other aspect which disturbs us considerably, is the total insensitivity displayed by the police men to the child accompanying the persons detained”

Thus, setting aside the order of the High Court and cancelling the anticipatory bail granted, the Bench asked the State and the police force to take appropriate measures. “But we make it clear that observations made by us hereinabove are prima facie in nature and only on the propriety of granting anticipatory bail on the peculiar facts, which if found true, erodes the credibility of the force and vitiates the trust placed on them to maintain law and order; which in any event shall not govern the trial as such”, it ordered while allowing the appeal.

Cause Title: The State of Maharashtra v. Rahul Datta Bhosale (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 596)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Bharat Bagla, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate Shrirang B. Varma

Respondent: Senior Advocate Sudhanshu S Choudhari, AOR Anand Dilip Landge, Advocates Sangeeta Nenwani, Revati Pravin Kharde, Shreenivas Patil, Rahul Prakash Pathak

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Sanjay KumarJustice Vinod Chandran

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.