NEW DELHI: Highlighting the anguish of those who have to face undue harassment at the hands of police, the Supreme Court has said a police officer who abuses his position must be dealt with sternly, and presumptions and standards applicable to an accused-layperson would not apply to them. It cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to three Maharashtra police officers who had allegedly harassed a family, including a minor girl, following a search on a train. “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,” a bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and K Vinod Chandran said. The Bombay HC had granted anticipatory bail to thecops who allegedly harassed and extracted money from the family after a gold bar was found in their baggage. Quashing the order, the bench said the HC “threw to the winds the caution expressed by this court” in State of Jharkhand vs Sandeep Kumar in which abuse of authority had come up for consideration. “This court held that in every case of anticipatory bail the factors which ought to weigh with courts are the gravity of offence, probity of evidence, antecedents of 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 accused layperson would not apply, was frowned upon, especially when there is a clear abuse of authority,” the bench said.