Abuse of Authority by Police Officers in Extortion Cases Precludes Grant of Anticipatory Bail

The de-facto complainant, his minor daughter, and his brother-in-law were detained by three railway police officers (Respondents) at Mumbai Central Railway Station

During a baggage search, a 14-gram gold bar and Rs. 31,900 cash were found. The Respondents allegedly took the complainants to a closed room without CCTV, intimidated them, and extorted money to return the gold without further action

While the Additional Sessions Judge rejected their anticipatory bail, the High Court granted it, citing unblemished service, lack of visible distress in CCTV footage, and delay in FIR registration

The State appealed this grant, noting that the officers had since been dismissed following a domestic inquiry

The Court primarily applied the principles governing anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC (now BNSS), emphasizing factors such as gravity of offense, probity of evidence, and impact on society

State of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar (2024) 14 SCC 265, which established that for wayward police officers charged with abuse of authority, the normal presumptions applicable to layperson-accused do not apply

Standard Operating Procedures regarding searches, which mandate video recording and verification of valuable items in secure, monitored locations

The Supreme Court criticized the High Court's "cryptic order," finding it had "thrown to the winds" the established caution for granting bail in cases of uniformed excesses

The Court observed that the High Court’s reliance on the absence of "distress" in CCTV footage was flawed, as the footage actually showed gesturing and a trailing child, indicating distress, and the time spent in the non-CCTV room was sufficient for the alleged extortion

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Respondents’ failure to follow SOPs—specifically by not informing appropriate authorities about the gold bar and failing to record the search in the official register—validated the allegations of extortion rather than exonerating them

The Court reasoned that the "preponderance of probability" established in the domestic inquiry, which led to their dismissal, justified the State's demand for custodial interrogation

The Court held that the grant of bail was irregular and illegal given the patent abuse of authority and the sensitive nature of the crime involving a minor

The State and police were directed to take appropriate measures, while clarifying that these observations are prima facie and shall not govern the final trial. Appeal allowed