The State Of Maharashtra vs Rahul Datta Bhosale

2026 INSC 596
Non-Reportable


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. of 2026
[@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1760 of 2026]


The State of Maharashtra
...Appellant

Versus

Rahul Datta Bhosale & Ors.
...Respondents


O R D E R

Leave granted.
2. 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.
3. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2026.05.29
17:31:05 IST
Reason:
of further action with respect to a gold bar found in their
Page 1 of 9
Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.) No.1760 of 2026

baggage. The High Court threw to the winds the caution
expressed by this Court in the State of Jharkhand v.
1
Sandeep Kumar , wherein an abuse of authority, by way of
correcting an FIR and altering the identity of accused, came
up for consideration. This Court held that in every case of
anticipatory bail the factors which ought to weigh with the
Courts are, the gravity of the offence, probity of the
evidence, antecedents of the accused, possibilities of;
flight, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, the
impact on society and any aspect peculiar to the case or the
accused. The grant of anticipatory bail especially to a
wayward police officer charged with enforcement of law,
where the normal presumptions applicable to an accused-
layperson would not apply, was frowned upon especially
when there is a clear abuse of authority.
4. The brief facts leading to the registration of FIR
No.451/2025 dated 17.08.2025 at the Mumbai Central
Railway Police Station are as follows. The de-facto
complainant with his daughter, travelling from Mumbai in

1
(2024) 14 SCC 265
Page 2 of 9
Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.) No.1760 of 2026

the Hapa Duronto Express, accompanied by his brother-in-
law who came to see him off, were 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.

5. 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.
6. We heard Sri Bharat Bagla, learned counsel for the
State, who pointed out the various guidelines as produced
Page 3 of 9
Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.) No.1760 of 2026

in the memorandum, which required search and seizure to
be conducted with proper video recording. The police men
had taken the de-facto complainant along with the two
others accompanying him, to an enclosed room where there
were no cameras placed. Though the time spent inside the
room was minimal it was sufficient to validate the contention
of intimidation and forcing the de-facto complainant to part
with money; the gold and the money having already been
revealed when the baggage was checked in the open. The
learned State Counsel emphasized that the State would not
tolerate such uniformed excesses on the citizen and pointed
out that as of now the three officers stood dismissed from
service after a proper enquiry. It is argued that though a
criminal trial requires a higher standard of proof, ie: beyond
reasonable doubt, the preponderance of probability which
stood satisfied in the domestic enquiry validates the stand
of the State that custodial interrogation is necessary and the
grant of anticipatory bail was irregular and illegal.
7. Sri Sudhanshu S. Choudhary learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the respondents contends that the State is
Page 4 of 9
Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.) No.1760 of 2026

being unnecessarily vindictive against the officers who
have more than 20 years of unblemished service. The entire
story is cooked up as is revealed from the delay in lodging
the FIR. Though the de-facto complainant and his daughter
travelled in the Duronto Express, the person accompanying
them could have made a complaint immediately before the
jurisdictional Police Station. It was after two days that a
complaint was registered at Ratangarh (GRP Jodhpur)
Police Station, which was transferred to the jurisdictional
Police Station. The accused had returned the gold to the
person searched and the accusation of extortion of money is
on its face a falsehood. The de-facto complainant was taken
to the Sabotage Room only since a gold bar was detected in
the bag; the credentials for which could not be produced.
8. We were also shown the CCTV footage, which the
High Court viewed to find the passengers to be free of any
signs of distress. The de-facto complainant with the child
and another adult were detained by two police men who
were carrying out routine search on the railway station
having been posted there on a security detail under the
Page 5 of 9
Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.) No.1760 of 2026

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. 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.
9. Moreover, the accused emphasized on their identity
cards having been clearly displayed while the State
contends that it was either covered by a mobile phone
placed inside the pocket or hung, face down. We would for
the moment accept that the ID cards were properly
displayed, but only to observe that when citizens are
waylaid by uniformed men it is not often that they note the
Page 6 of 9
Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.) No.1760 of 2026

name from the ID cards for recollection later. Yet again, to
read the fine print on a name plate or an identity card, a
person detained would have to crane their neck, which the
uniformed personnel would take affront to as an act of
confrontation.
10. One other aspect on which the learned Senior Counsel
vociferously argued was the return of gold bar, which we,
on the other hand, find to be validating the allegation of
extortion. The accused do not have a contention that they
were shown the documents to validate the possession of the
gold bar. The only contention taken up is that the de-facto
complainant having shown them his identity card in the
closed room he was released immediately. The very
accusation against the de-facto complainant was that the
gold bar having been found in his baggage he was taken to
the room where the superior officer was present. There is
no contention taken that any documents were produced to
validate the possession of gold, in which event the proper
measure to be adopted was for the police officers to put the
law into motion by informing appropriate authorities.
Page 7 of 9
Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.) No.1760 of 2026

Obviously, the de-facto complainant was let off on his
identity being revealed, which could have been done in the
open.
11. We also take note of the various Standard Operating
Procedures produced in the memorandum. Annexure P6,
require police personnel who find valuable items on search
to verify the ‘ Bar Code Linked Identification Card ’ issued by
the Jewelers Association along with the accompanying
documents detailing the description, weight and receipt of
valuable item. It is also mandated that such inspection shall
be conducted in a secure location within the police station
premises without carrying it out openly with the rigor of
recording the inspection on video. Here, the de-facto
complainant was taken inside a closed room where there
was no CCTV available. The search conducted is also to be
recorded in a register, the certified copy of which, issued
by the Mumbai Railway Commissionerate at Ext.P13, does
not indicate the name of the defacto complainant. One other
aspect which disturbs us considerably, is the total
Page 8 of 9
Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.) No.1760 of 2026

insensitivity displayed by the police men to the child
accompanying the persons detained.
12. On the above reasoning, we set aside the order of the
High Court and cancel the anticipatory bail granted. The
State and the police force shall 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.
13. The appeal stands allowed.
14. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


……...…….……………………. J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)



...………….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI
MAY 27, 2026.

Page 9 of 9
Crl.A. @ SLP(Crl.) No.1760 of 2026