STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAHUL DATTA BHOSALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 of further action with respect to a gold bar found in their baggage. The High Court threw to the winds the caution expressed by this Court in the State of Jharkhand v. Sandeep Kumar ; (2024) 14 SCC 265, 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 accusedlayperson would not apply, was frowned upon especially when there is a clear abuse of authority.