Mumbai News: 3 RPF Personnel Accused Of Extorting Passenger At Mumbai Central Move Bombay HC For Anticipatory Bail

Mumbai: Three Railway Police Force (RPF) personnel accused of extorting money from a passenger at Mumbai Central terminus have moved the Bombay High Court seeking anticipatory bail after a sessions court rejected their plea last week.

Accused Remain Absconding

The trio — Rahul Bhosale (47), Lalit Jagtap (50) and Anil Rathod (37) — have allegedly been absconding since August 18, when an FIR was registered. The sessions court had refused relief, observing that custodial interrogation was essential as the search of the victim’s bag was carried out in a room and not under CCTV surveillance, in violation of norms, reflecting the “ill intention” of the accused.

Jeweller’s Complaint

According to the complaint, the incident occurred on August 10 when a Rajasthan-based jeweller and his eight-year-old daughter were about to board the Duronto Express. A policeman allegedly stopped them for baggage inspection. During the search, officers found 14 grams of gold and over Rs 31,000 in cash, for which the businessman gave satisfactory explanations.

Nevertheless, he was allegedly taken to a room, threatened, abused, and forced to sign a blank paper. The officers are accused of extorting Rs 30,000 from him, returning only Rs 1,900 as “travel expenses,” while handing back the gold. The victims were allegedly told to “run away,” after which they returned to Rajasthan and later lodged a complaint.

Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution contended before the sessions court that the policemen violated standard operating procedures that mandate baggage checks be done under CCTV and duly recorded. The delay in lodging the FIR was explained as the victims were shaken and had to approach different police authorities.

Also Watch:

Mumbai Railway Police Transfers 8 Constables Amid Extortion Probe; New Bag-Checking Guidelines To Be Issued Soon

Accused Claim False Implication

The accused, however, claimed they were falsely implicated and that the delay made the prosecution’s version doubtful. They argued they were only discharging their duties. Their plea is likely to be heard by the high court next week.