Mumbai, March 7 (TNN): Two police sub-inspectors, one of them on probation, threatened and extorted ransom from the guests of a Vile Parle-based businessman on January 12. The incident occurred in a five-star hotel in Juhu where businessman Jasmin Shah's guests were staying to celebrate his mother's 82nd birthday.

The two sub-inspectors—Chandrakant Mete from Juhu and Vilas Hazare from Vile Parle—were placed under suspension on February 19 and a departmental inquiry was initiated after Shah approached Juhu police with the complaint the same day. "The complainant said the two cops came knocking on room 339 at the hotel and demanded Rs 10 lakh from the guests, if they wanted to avoid being framed for carrying out illegal activities and prostitution," said a Juhu police officer.

A senior policeman said what was shocking part is that Mete, a probationary officer, had no right to carry out a raid. Moreover, an officer from another police station can't cross his jurisdiction and enter a hotel in Juhu unless he is part of a special raiding team. "The shocking part is that the accused threatened the guests claiming they had brought women for the party. The two told the guests that they will book them under section 294 (obscene acts and songs) and demanded money for not taking action against them. The department will also enquire how these cops managed to get into the rooms and who provided them with Shah's guest details," said the source. Juhu senior inspector Abhay Shastry said a departmental inquiry has been initiated against the suspended cops.

TOI tried to contact Shah on Friday, who denied revealing anything about the incident and said it could have been a case of mistaken identity by the two cops.

The incident occurred around 3am on January 12, but Shah was not present in the room when the cops arrived. "In a complaint to Juhu police, Shah said one of his guest Deepu Jaiswal spoke to the policemen who told him that they have received a tip-off that they are carrying out illegal activities in the room. The cops then demanded money. Jaiswal and other guests managed to collect Rs 2.35 lakh which they handed over to Hazare," said the source.

Before leaving the hotel, the cops took contact numbers of Jaiswal and two other guests and warned them to pay the balance amount by afternoon. "The complaint said Hazare called Jaiswal and two other guests asking when they will pay the rest of the money," police said.

Mumbai police spokesperson, DCP (crime) Dhananjay Kulkarni confirmed the incident and said necessary action has been taken by the zone-9 DCP. "The action was taken after their report was forwarded to the commissionerate's office," said DCP Vinayak Deshmukh, who has additional charge of zone-9.

Former IPS official-turned-lawyer Y P Singh said in this case legal procedures do not appear to have been complied with. "Voluntary cohabitation with a girlfriend who is not a minor is not an offence at all. Such actions can make the defaulting cop liable to be prosecuted under section 448 of the IPC. The act of demanding bribes is also an offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, punishable with six months to five years' imprisonment," said Singh.

Know your rights:

Stay of a birthday or marriage party in a five-star hotel can't create suspicion of trafficking

Under the police manual, all searches have to be duly entered in the station diary and a panchnama has to be done

Further an FIR has to be registered for a search to be conducted or the moment the search is done

In case of seizure of any incriminating material, this to be reported to the magistrate under section 102 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)

Guidelines for a raid:

Former IPS officer turned lawyer YP Singh said:

Search without warrant can be conducted under section 15 of the Prevention of Immoral Traffic Act 1956 only by a duly authorized special police officer if there is specific information about trafficking and there is no time to obtain warrant. There can be no chance of a probationary officer being accorded such powers.

It is required to prove trafficking, mere cohabitation of consenting extramarital partners dies not amount to trafficking.