Not Appropriate To Grant Pre-Arrest Bail In Sextortion Cases, May Impede Investigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that it is not appropriate to grant pre-arrest bail in case involving  allegations of “sextortion”. Sextortion involves exploitation of intimate images and videos to extort money or favours from victims.

Justice Sumeet Goel said, “It goes without saying that in a case where the allegations are of sextortion, as are in the present case, it is not appropriate to grant anticipatory bail, as it would necessarily cause impediment in effective investigation.”

The Court further added that while deciding a plea for grant of anticipatory bail, it has to strike a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting societal interest.

“The Court must also consider the gravity of the offence; the role attributed to the accused; the impact on the Society and the need for fair and free investigation. The relief must not unduly hamper the rights of the investigating agency to conduct free, fair and impartial investigation,” said the judge.

The bench was hearing three anticipatory bail petition of persons apprehending arrest in case registered under Sections 388, 506 and 120-B Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

It was alleged that the accused person was running a brothel from a rented accommodation and the women used to make video calls to “innocent people” for extorting money by blackmailing them.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that, “As per the allegations in the FIR as also the averments in the status report(s) filed by the State, it is indubitable that serious allegations have been made against the petitioners. The petitioners are alleged to be running a gang of sextortionists.”

Reliance was placed on Apex Court's decision in Kishor Vishwasrao Patil vs. Deepak Yashwant Patil and another, [SLP(Crl) No.1125-2022] wherein it was held that, “Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information.”

Justice Goel noted that the FIR in question was lodged pursuant to a video recording, the contents whereof appear to be "spelling out full gamut of offences".

The judge opined that the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the petitioners as also the factual matrix of the case essentially lead to the unequivocal conclusion that the petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.

It is worthwhile to mention that the High Court has recently issued a slew of directions to the police to curb the "menace of sextortion".

Justice Anoop Chitkara said, “It is disheartening that our penal laws, which were put in place to protect and defend the survivors of sexual assaults are being used today as a weapon by certain evil-intentioned members of society to extort money from the public for illegal gains or for taking revenge, creating fear in the minds of the targeted people to cause injury to their honour, capitalizing and preying on their fear, vulnerability, and helplessness.”

 Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 145

Title: XXX v XXX