Justice Gupta dismissed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. invoking subsequent prejudicial principle, noting threats involving obscene photographs, extortion, and need to recover electronic devices, unlike cited cases.
Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; no detention order passed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~
HARVINDER PAL SINGH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.S.P.Singh Choudhary with Mr.Y.R.Sharma, Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Hirein Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Complainant in person.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
O R D E R % 11.07.2016
Bail Appln.864/2016
Page 1 of 4
which she had received as alimony besides other gold articles. He established physical relations with her on the pretext of marrying her and during that process, he made some Video Clips and took her obscene photographs and thereafter, started black-mailing, threatening and extorting her that he will circulate the said Video Clips on Internet and make her photographs public. On one occasion, he gave her a diamond necklace and took Rs. 3,50,000/- from her. Later on, she came to know that the said necklace was stolen property. He further threatened her that in case, she lodged complaint with the police, he will get her brother murdered through his brother who is lodged in jail in a case of robbery.
Bail Appln.864/2016
Page 2 of 4
157; Uday vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 46; Jagdish Nautiyal vs. State 2013 (1) JCC 311; Vikas Rana vs. State 2015 (2) AD (Delhi) 718; Vikash vs. The State of Delhi 2007 (3) JCC 2336 and Ashutosh Tiwari vs. State NCT of Delhi 2009 (1) JCC 105. 4. The application is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor for the State on the ground that the petitioner taking advantage of the strained relations between the complainant and her husband developed friendship and established physical relations with her on the false pretext of marriage. In view of the assurance given by the petitioner that he will marry her, the complainant took divorce from her husband, however, the petitioner exploited her and took hefty amount from her. Once she paid Rs.50,000/then Rs.3,50,000/- but the amount was never returned. He took her obscene photographs and threatened and extorted money and subsequently transferred her Video Clips on the mobile phone of his friend Harminder Singh whose statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C was recorded , wherein, he stated that the petitioner had sent obscene pictures of the prosecutrix to him before the registration of FIR. On checking mobile phone of Harminder Singh, Video Clips of the complainant were found therein. The mobile phone was seized for sending the same to FSL authorities. Further investigation revealed that the petitioner was in possession of a cheque of the complainant which he tried to get encashed by altering/making corrections in the date and amount but the same was dishonoured due to the said alteration/correction. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required for recovery of mobile phone and laptop as such, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.
Bail Appln.864/2016
Page 3 of 4
SUNITA GUPTA, J
JULY 11, 2016
Bail Appln.864/2016
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail in light of threats involving obscene photographs and demand for encashment of altered cheque.
Whether the peculiar facts requiring recovery of electronic devices justify refusing anticipatory bail.
Whether the case for granting bail is distinguishable from cited precedents due to specific circumstances of extortion and blackmail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arif Iqbal vs. StateReferred¶14
Arif Iqbal vs. State 2009 (164) DLT 157 · Who else cites this
Uday vs. State of KarnatakaReferred¶14
Uday vs. State of Karnataka (2003) 4 Supreme Court Cases 46
Jagdish Nautiyal vs. StateReferred¶14
Jagdish Nautiyal vs. State 2013 (1) JCC 311
Vikas Rana vs. StateReferred¶14
Vikas Rana vs. State 2015 (2) AD (Delhi) 718
Vikash vs. The State of DelhiReferred¶14
Vikash vs. The State of Delhi 2007 (3) JCC 2336
Ashutosh Tiwari vs. State NCT of DelhiReferred¶14
Ashutosh Tiwari vs. State NCT of Delhi 2009 (1) JCC 105
1 provisions across 1 enactments
HARVINDER PAL SINGH
STATE
SUNITA GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
