MAPUSA
A Pernem court while granting bail to accused Rajesh Dabholkar in the Mandrem Police Station extortion case sharply criticised the conduct of the Investigating Officer (IO), observing that the police appeared to be “trying to create confusion” only to justify the arrest and seek police custody.
The case arose from a complaint alleging that Dabholkar and others demanded Rs 1.5 crore from the complainant in connection with the “Mayfair on the Sea” construction project and later increased the alleged demand to Rs 5.5 crore while threatening the complainant and his workers.
The FIR also accused the group of unlawfully operating drones over the complainant’s property.
However, while hearing the bail application, the court questioned the manner in which the police invoked serious charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), particularly Section 308(5), which relates to extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt.
The court observed that, based on the complaint itself, Section 308(5) did not appear applicable. At best, Sections 308(3), 308(4) and 308(6) could apply, of which Sections 308(3) and 308(6) are bailable offences.
The judge further noted that Section 308(4), though non-bailable, carries a punishment of up to seven years, making it mandatory for police to issue a notice under Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before arrest.
The court held that the Investigating Officer neither issued such notice nor explained why it was not served, making the arrest “apparently illegal.”
The judge also pointed to an unexplained delay in filing the complaint, noting that the alleged incidents dated back nearly six months. Despite this, the police “immediately arrested” the accused without demonstrating any urgency or necessity for custodial interrogation.
In strong remarks against the police, the court said the IO had invoked “all the non-cognizable sections without application of mind.”
The judge also highlighted inaccuracies in the police reply, where the IO wrongly claimed that the JMFC court had granted police custody remand.
Upon being questioned, the officer reportedly admitted the statement was made “inadvertently.”
The court further noted that the police incorrectly described the offences as Sessions triable, whereas all invoked sections were triable by the JMFC court itself.
“From the conduct of the IO, it appears that the IO is trying to create confusion to somehow obtain police custody of the accused without any valid reason or justification,” the court observed.
Dabholkar was subsequently released on bail on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one local surety, subject to standard conditions.
