The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a woman accused of allegedly extorting approximately Rs 6 crore through cyber sextortion.
Posing “purportedly” as an air hostess employed with an international airlines and residing in Dubai, she had allegedly luring the complainant into a relationship through false representations on social media and threatening to circulate his sexually explicit photographs and videos.
Observing that economic offences involving large-scale financial loss affect not only the individual victim but also undermine public confidence in financial and digital transactions, Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that such offences stand on a distinct footing.
An FIR in the matter was registered on January 21 under the provisions of the BNS at Sector-53 police station in Gurugram.
Justice Moudgil asserted that the prosecution case was “not confined to a simple monetary dispute or an isolated act of cheating”.
Rather, the allegations disclosed “a well-planned and sustained course of conduct extending over a considerable period”, whereby the complainant was allegedly lured into a relationship through false representations on social media, subjected to emotional manipulation, and thereafter coerced into making repeated monetary transfers under threats of dissemination of sexually explicit photographs and videos.
“The allegations prima facie reveal elements of cyber-enabled fraud, impersonation, sextortion, criminal intimidation and organized financial exploitation,” the court observed.
Justice Moudgil observed that “economic offences involving large-scale financial loss affected not only the individual victim but also undermine public confidence in financial and digital transactions”.
The seriousness of such offences, the court added, was “further aggravated when they are alleged to have been committed through abuse of electronic platforms and threats calculated to exploit the victim’s fear of social stigma and reputational harm.”
Rejecting the contention that custodial interrogation was unnecessary because the case rested substantially on documentary and electronic evidence, the Bench observed that the investigation was still in progress and the prosecution had specifically asserted that custodial interrogation was necessary “for tracing the money trail, identifying the involvement of other persons, recovering the defrauded amount and unearthing the complete modus operandi adopted by the accused persons.”
Justice Moudgil added that in cases involving allegations of organised cyber fraud and financial transactions spread across multiple accounts, the investigating agency “must be afforded adequate opportunity to effectively investigate the larger conspiracy and ascertain the role of each participant.”
Justice Moudgil further observed that the allegations disclosed “a prima facie case of criminal conspiracy and systematic extortion rather than an isolated transaction”.
At the stage of considering anticipatory bail, “a detailed examination of the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner would be impermissible”.
The court was only required to assess whether the accusations were prima facie credible and whether the nature of the offence warranted custodial interrogation.
Referring to the safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court in its judgments, Justice Moudgil asserted the verdicts did “not create an absolute bar against arrest in every case where the offence is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years”. Their applicability, the court observed, depended upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
“In the present matter, considering the enormity of the alleged financial fraud, the allegations of cyber sextortion, the substantial amounts stated to have been credited into the petitioner’s account and the requirement of a thorough investigation into the wider conspiracy, this Court is not persuaded to extend the protection of anticipatory bail,” the Bench observed.
The court also rejected the contention that the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail as she was a woman.
“Merely because the petitioner is a woman would not, by itself, entitle her to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail when the allegations disclose active involvement in the commission of serious offences involving large-scale financial gain and exploitation of the victim through threats and coercion,” the court observed.
Dismissing the petition, the High Court concluded that, in view of “the nature and gravity of the accusations, the magnitude of the alleged amount involved, the manner in which the offences are stated to have been committed and the requirement of effective investigation”, no exceptional circumstance existed for exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail.
