Crimes By Police Undermine The Integrity Of The Entire Justice System: Bombay High Court Dismisses Daman & Diu Policemen’s Bail Plea
Kiran Raj
The High Court of Bombay Single Bench of Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale on Tuesday rejected a bail plea filed by police personnel from the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, declining to order their release. The applicants are accused, along with other officers, of intercepting young men who had travelled from Surat to Daman, taking them to police headquarters, seizing their phones, using physical force and threats, and demanding Rs 25 lakh to let them go, before accepting a reduced amount and releasing them. The Bench noted that alleged criminal conduct by law enforcers damages the credibility of the justice system and held that the material on record made the case unsuitable for bail.
The applicants—Ramdev Singh Jadeja, Vishal Mir, and Chintan Arvindbhai Desai—police constables attached to the Crime Branch, Daman—sought bail in connection with an FIR registered at the Coastal Police Station, Kadaiya, Daman. The FIR stemmed from an incident dated 25 August 2025, when the complainant and his friends travelled from Surat to Daman, purchased liquor, and were intercepted by police personnel. They were taken to police headquarters, detained, allegedly assaulted, and threatened with severe penal consequences. It was alleged that their mobile phones were seized and that money was demanded for their release. An amount was allegedly arranged and paid, after which the complainant and his companions were released.
The FIR initially invoked Sections 140(2), 308(7), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During investigation, further provisions were considered. The charge sheet ultimately retained only bailable offences, dropping Section 140(2). The complainant filed a protest petition. Upon examining the material placed on record, the Magistrate recorded that offences under Sections 140(2) and 308(2) were prima facie made out. Bail applications before the Magistrate were rejected, leading to the matter being carried before the High Court.
The Court framed the issue around the Magistrate’s powers when a police report/charge sheet is placed for consideration and recorded that the Magistrate is not required to accept the investigating officer’s conclusion. It stated: “the Magistrate is not bound by the analysis of the investigative officer as contained in the charge sheet.” It further recorded the nature of the charge sheet and the locus of judicial decision-making by stating: “The charge sheet is only the opinion of the investigating officer…” and “It is the Magistrate, ultimately, who takes a judicial decision… to take cognizance or otherwise, and proceed to issue process to the accused.”
While referring to the Supreme Court’s discussion in Sharif Ahmed, the Court reproduced that an approach independent of the investigating officer’s opinion is permissible. It quoted: “this does not preclude the Magistrate from exercising her powers in adopting an approach independent from such opinion” and further: “It is the police report which would enable the Magistrate to decide a course of action from the options available to him.”
On the investigation narrative presented before it, the Court noted developments regarding the Special Investigation Team and recorded: “The entire conduct of the Investigating Agency is thus, questionable.”
Turning to bail parameters, the Court recorded: “the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail” and set out considerations including: “whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence” and “nature and gravity of the accusation” among others.
Applying these factors to the case at hand, the Court recorded the significance of the applicants being police officials and the allegations attributed to them, stating: “the accused are police officials working in the Crime Branch of Daman” and that the alleged acts included coercion, detention, abuse, monitoring, and release “only when the ransom money was paid.” It recorded the institutional impact by stating that such conduct “undermine[s] the integrity of the entire justice system” and concluded on gravity and prima facie satisfaction: “the offences committed by the Applicants and the Co-accused are grave and serious” and “prima facie, the offences as alleged in the FIR and of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate, is made out.”
The Court declined to interfere with the order of the Magistrate and rejected the bail application. It recorded that “the Magistrate undeniably is vested with the powers to accept the charge sheet as it is or independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation and take cognizance of the case, as he deems fit.”
The Court further held that, considering the material on record and the nature of allegations, “I am in total agreement with the view taken by the Magistrate.”
While refusing bail, the Court concluded that “the offences committed by the Applicants and the Co-accused are grave and serious” and that “prima facie, the offences as alleged in the FIR and of which cognizance is taken by the Magistrate, is made out.” It also recorded apprehension that the applicants, if released, could interfere with the investigation, noting that “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.”
Case Title: Ramdev Singh Jadeja & Ors. v. Union Territory of Daman & Diu & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:55445
Case Number: Bail Application No. 4519 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dr. Neela Gokhale
