Delhi High Court: In the present case, three applications were taken up together which were filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR dated 8-12-2022 registered at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 388, and 170 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). Amit Mahajan, J.*, opined that the investigation unearthed multiple complaints, revealing habitual engagement of applicants in criminal practices, like, sextortion calls. Thus, the Court after considering the nature of the offence, dismissed the applications and held that no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to applicants was made out.
Background
The FIR was registered at the instance of the complainant who alleged that on 10-10-2022, he received a WhatsApp video call from an unknown lady, who insisted on a private video call and later recorded the video call. Thereafter, the complainant received several calls from different mobile numbers who introduced themselves as police officers/YouTube employees and extorted a total amount of Rs 16 lakhs on the pretext of removing the video from YouTube, Facebook, Instagram and by threatening him of false accusation in the murder case of the lady in the video and on the pretext of settling the matter with her family.
During investigation, it was found that the mobile numbers of the callers were in Rajasthan at the time of the alleged incident and the alleged persons were part of an organized group operating from there. Further, three accused persons were arrested on 22-12-2022 and during interrogation, they stated that they used to commit such offences along with applicants.
Counsel for applicants submitted that applicants had been falsely implicated based on the disclosure statements of the co-accused persons and there was nothing incriminating against applicants. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge rightly rejected the bail application of applicants vide a detailed and reasoned order and there was no ground to interfere with the same as applicants had been an active member of the organized crime syndicate being run for carrying out an organized crime of sextortion.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court relied on State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 wherein it was stated that “the custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of CrPC”. The Court observed that applicants had failed to cooperate with the investigation even after they were granted interim protection by this Court and thus opined that granting anticipatory bail to applicant would undoubtedly impede further investigation. An order of bail could not be granted routinely to allow applicant to use the same as a shield.
The Court observed that applicants were alleged to have made a woman contact the complainant through video calls, messages and later got his video clip. They then threatened to make the video viral on social media. Later, the complainant was conveyed that the woman who undressed in the video clip has committed suicide. Applicants posed themselves to be police officials and had forged ID Card. The Court noted that during the analysis on National Cyber Reporting Portal, ten complaints were found, in which innocent people were cheated by the same accused persons through the same modus operandi.
The Court opined that it could not be a mere coincidence that the device which was used by applicant with his own SIM card gets used with SIM card via which the sextortion calls were made. Further, the investigation unearthed multiple complaints, revealing habitual engagement of applicants in such criminal practices. Given the pattern of conduct and the serious implications of the offences as alleged, there was a justified concern regarding applicants’ potential influence over the evidence and the possibility of committing similar offences if not detained.
The Court opined that “sextortion represents a profound violation of privacy and is a significant social menace. It involves the exploitation of obtained intimate images and videos to extort money or favours from victims, often leading to severe psychological trauma. This cyber-enabled crime not only undermines individual dignity but also poses serious challenges to law enforcement due to its clandestine and cross-jurisdictional nature”. The Court thus opined that the scale of operation, at this stage, seemed to be humongous and dismantling such a complex modus operandi, which was alleged to have been used by applicants and the other accused persons, by its very nature, required thorough investigation and custodial interrogation which ought not to be curtailed by passing an order under Section 438 of CrPC.
Thus, the Court after considering the nature of the offence, dismissed the applications and held that no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to applicants was made out.
[Soukin v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2986, decided on 24-4-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Amit Mahajan
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicants: Nagma Bee, Rashid Khan, Altaf Hussain, Aftab Hussain, Advocates
For the Respondents: Amol Sinha, ASC for the State; Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar, Advocates
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
