Mumbai: A sessions court Tuesday denied anticipatory bail to three railway policemen accused of extorting money from a passenger at Mumbai Central railway station, noting that the search of the victim’s bag took place in a room and not under CCTV surveillance as required. This action, the court stated, shows the “ill intention” of the accused. The accused, Rahul Bhosale (47), Lalit Jagtap (50), and Anil Rathod (37), submitted their pleas on August 20.“Weighing the facts and circumstances of the present case on the anvil of law settled, I am of the opinion that the custodial interrogation of applicants is very much essential to bring the truth on record and, as such, applicants do not qualify for exercising the extraordinary power by this court in their favour,” Additional Sessions Judge Prashant C Kale said. The officers, who were not wearing identity badges, allegedly threatened and assaulted a man and his daughter, taking Rs 30,000 in cash from them. The incident occurred on Aug 10, when the victims were travelling from the city to Rajasthan.According to the prosecution, the Rajasthan-based jeweller and his eight-year-old daughter were about to board the Duronto Express from Mumbai Central Terminus when a cop asked them to halt for baggage examination. Although the officers found 14 gram of gold and over Rs 31,000 in cash, the passenger provided satisfactory explanations for the items.Despite this, the officers allegedly took the jeweller to an office room where he was threatened, abused, and assaulted. The officers are accused of pressuring the man to sign a blank piece of paper and then taking Rs 30,000 in cash, returning only Rs 1,900 for their travel expenses. The gold was returned, and the victims were told to “run away from the spot”. The man and his daughter, shaken by the incident, travelled back to Rajasthan and later filed a formal complaint.The accused officers sought anticipatory bail, arguing they were falsely implicated and that there was a five-day delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR). Their lawyer contended that the officers were simply performing their duty and that the prosecution’s story was an “afterthought”.However, public prosecutor Ashwini Rayakar argued that the officers’ actions were in direct violation of standard operating procedures (SOPs). Railway police are required to conduct baggage searches under CCTV surveillance and make an official entry in a register. The search in this case was conducted in a private room, which the prosecution cited as evidence of the officers’ ill intentions. The prosecution also noted that the delay in the FIR was justifiable, as the victims were mentally disturbed and had to travel to different police authorities to file their complaint.The judge stated that allowing anticipatory bail would hinder a full and fair investigation and reduce the interrogation to a mere formality.
