The Supreme Court recently cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to three Maharashtra police officers accused of allegedly extorting money from a jeweller, observing that misuse of police authority leaves ordinary citizens with little choice but to submit.
The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the officers' plea for anticipatory bail.
However, the Bombay High Court granted them anticipatory bail through a brief order after viewing CCTV footage collected during the investigation.
Setting aside the high court's order, the Supreme Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the three officers.
It clarified that its observations were only prima facie and confined to the question of anticipatory bail.
The Supreme Court recently cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to three Maharashtra police officers accused of allegedly extorting money from a jeweller, observing that misuse of police authority leaves ordinary citizens with little choice but to submit.
"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," a Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran said.
The Bench set aside a Bombay High Court order granting anticipatory bail to Rahul Datta Bhosale and two other police personnel, who were accused of misusing their authority by allegedly subjecting a man and his minor daughter to intimidation and extracting money after a gold bar was found in the man's baggage.
The case against the police officer
According to the FIR registered on August 17, 2025 at Mumbai Central Railway Police Station, the complainant was travelling in the Hapa Duronto Express with his minor daughter. His brother-in-law had accompanied them to the station.
During a baggage check by the railway police's sabotage-detection team, officers found a 14-gram gold bar and Rs 31,900 in cash. The complainant alleged that despite offering a satisfactory explanation, he, his daughter and his brother-in-law were taken to a nearby room, where they were intimidated and verbally abused. The officers allegedly forced them to part with cash in exchange for returning the gold and not initiating further action.
The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the officers' plea for anticipatory bail.
However, the Bombay High Court granted them anticipatory bail through a brief order after viewing CCTV footage collected during the investigation. It noted that the officers were wearing identity cards, the complainant and his daughter did not appear to be in distress, there was a delay in lodging the FIR, and the officers had unblemished service records.
Cancellation of anticipatory bail
The Supreme Court found that the high court had ignored the caution laid down in State of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar (2024), where the Court had highlighted the need for caution in cases involving abuse of police authority.
The State submitted that it would not tolerate such excesses by police personnel and informed the Court that all three officers had since been dismissed from service after a departmental inquiry. It contended that while a criminal trial requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, the departmental inquiry had established misconduct on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, making custodial interrogation necessary.
The officers, on the other hand, argued that the complaint was fabricated and pointed to the delay in lodging the FIR. They submitted that the complainant's brother-in-law could have immediately approached the local police, whereas the complaint was first lodged two days later at Ratangarh (GRP Jodhpur) Police Station before being transferred to Mumbai. They also claimed that the gold had been returned and denied any extortion, contending that the complainant had merely been taken to the sabotage room because he could not initially produce documents relating to the gold bar.
After examining the CCTV footage, the Supreme Court disagreed with the high court's assessment.
"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," the Bench said.
Court observed that the footage showed the two adults walking ahead, with one of them gesturing frantically while the child trailed behind, which, according to the bench, was a clear indication of distress.
"We also find that the time they spent inside the closed room was sufficient for the police men to carry out the complained of actions, which we hasten to observe have to be in any event proved in a criminal trial," the Bench added.
Court also noted that a person detained by uniformed officers cannot reasonably be expected to remember the names on identity cards or read the fine print on name badges, particularly in intimidating circumstances.
Court flags violation of SOPs
The Bench also examined the Standard Operating Procedures governing searches involving valuable items. It noted that police personnel are required to verify the Bar Code Linked Identification Card issued by the Jewellers Association along with documents relating to the valuable item. The SOPs further require such inspections to be conducted at a secure location within the police station and properly recorded.
Court found that the complainant had instead been taken to a closed room where there was no CCTV coverage. It also noted that the register maintained for such searches did not contain the complainant's name.
"One other aspect which disturbs us considerably, is the total insensitivity displayed by the police men to the child accompanying the persons detained," the Bench observed.
Setting aside the high court's order, the Supreme Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the three officers.
It clarified that its observations were only prima facie and confined to the question of anticipatory bail. Court said the findings would not influence the criminal trial, where the allegations would have to be proved on evidence.
Case Title: The State of Maharashtra Vs Rahul Datta Bhosale & Ors
Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran
Date of Judgment: May 27, 2026
