Bombay High Court: In a bail application filed under criminal appellate jurisdiction, the applicants sought release in connection with an FIR registered at Coastal Police Station, Daman, for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, wherein a Single Judge Bench of Neela Gokhale, J., held that the Magistrate is not bound by the analysis of the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet and can independently take cognizance of non-bailable offences. Observing that prima facie offences of abduction and extortion were made out, the Court rejected the bail application.
Background:
The dispute arose from an incident on 25-08-2025 when the complainant and his friends, travelling from Surat to Daman in an Innova car after purchasing liquor, were intercepted by persons identifying themselves as police officials. They were taken to the Police Headquarters, where their mobile phones were seized, they were slapped, and threatened with implication in serious offences despite producing a receipt for the liquor. Out of fear, they offered money for their release, leading to a demand initially of Rs 25,00,000, later negotiated to Rs 10,00,000.
The complainant was permitted to call his friends to arrange funds, with calls monitored by the police. Eventually, Rs. 7,00,000 was handed over, after which the complainant and his friends were released along with their vehicle. A subsequent complaint to the police helpline led to intervention by the Coastal Police Station, and the complainant identified several police personnel, including constables and a PSI, as those involved in abduction and extortion.
An FIR was registered under Sections 140(2), 308(7), and 3(5) of the BNS. The accused were arrested and remanded to custody. However, while filing the charge sheet, the investigating agency dropped Section 140(2) of the BNS, a non-bailable offence, and retained only bailable offences, which led to the present bail application.
The applicants argued that since only bailable offences remained, bail was a matter of right, contending that the complainant voluntarily offered money and that the allegations were fabricated by bootleggers. The respondents supported this position, while the intervenor submitted that the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of Section 140(2) and 308(2) of the BNS, both non-bailable offences, and that dropping Section 140(2) of the BNS was unjustified, as the facts clearly established abduction and extortion.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the limited question which arose was whether the Magistrate is bound by the opinion of the Investigating Officer as given in the charge sheet while considering a bail application. The Court observed the relevant provisions of the BNSS, 2023 and highlighted that when a police report is placed before the Magistrate under Section 193(3)(i) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), the Magistrate has three options: he may accept the report and take cognizance of the offence and issue process, he may direct further investigation, or he may disagree with the report and discharge the accused or drop the proceedings. The Court noted that even if the police report concludes that no offence appears to have been committed, the Magistrate again has three options, including taking cognizance of the offence and issuing process.
The Court observed that the Supreme Court in Sharif Ahmed v. State of U.P., (2024) 14 SCC 122 held that a charge sheet must be complete and supported by material, and that the Magistrate must independently scrutinize it rather than rely on the Investigating Officer’s opinion. The Court reiterated the words of Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police, (1985) 2 SCC 537 that the Magistrate can ignore the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer and independently apply his mind to the facts emerging from the investigation. The Court further noted that the Magistrate is not bound by the analysis of the Investigating Officer, and the charge sheet is only the opinion of the Investigating Officer arrived at after analysing the information collected.
The Court highlighted that a plain reading of the FIR indicated abduction, intimidation, and extortion. The Court noted that the complainant and his friends were detained in Police Headquarters without any proceedings and released only on receiving ransom. They were slapped, pushed around, and their mobile phones and valuable items were snatched. The Court observed that the charge sheet reiterated these facts but was silent on any reason or justification to drop Section 140(2) of the BNS. The Court noted that the Magistrate, by order dated 20-10-2025, appreciating the material collected, observed that prima facie offences punishable under Section 140(2) and 308(2) of the BNS were made out and issued notice to the prosecution. This order remained unchallenged.
The Court emphasised that the sanction accorded by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (‘DIG’) was for the offences mentioned in the FIR and any other offences punishable under law, leaving it to the discretion of the Magistrate to take cognizance of any other offences deemed appropriate. The Court observed that the conduct of the investigating agency was questionable, as the Special Investigation Team (‘SIT’) formed was discontinued within a month, and submissions were made to portray an unbiased investigation which was not borne out by the record.
The Court highlighted that among the parameters for grant of bail are the nature and gravity of the accusation, severity of punishment, likelihood of repetition, and danger of justice being thwarted. The Court observed that the accused, being police officials, abused their position, coerced the complainant and his friends, intimidated them, monitored their calls, and released them only after ransom was paid. The Court emphasised that crimes by police officials undermine the integrity of the justice system, erode public confidence, and compromise fairness of legal proceedings.
The Court noted that the remand reports narrated how the accused attempted to derail investigation by feigning ill health, destroying electronic evidence, and intimidating the complainant. The Court observed that their conduct did not inspire confidence that they would not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses if enlarged on bail.
The Court, therefore, concluded that considering the settled legal position and the factual matrix, this was not a fit case to enlarge the applicants on bail, and accordingly rejected the bail application.
[Ramdev Singh Jadeja v. UT of Daman & Diu, Bail Application No. 4519 of 2025, decided on 16-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicants: Manoj Mohite, Sr. Advocate with Bhavesh, Vivek Pandey, Advocates
For the Respondents: Ashwin Thool with Ayush Singh with Archishmati Chandramore, Advocates, Shreyas Uday Lalit with Varun Thokal, Aditya Singh, Varun Thokal