Regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS by an accused arrested on allegations of extorting money from a hotel guest. Investigation complete, charge-sheet filed, no criminal antecedents and parity with bailed co-accused noted; court enlarged the petitioner on bail with conditions.
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.
$~7
Date of decision: 19.02.2025
Through: Mohd. Aslam Qureshi, Adv. versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for the State SI Manish with ASI Rajesh PS Paharganj.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA O R D E R
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J (ORAL):
1.1. The case of the prosecution as borne out from the status report is that the FIR was registered on basis the complaint by one Sanjay Sharma, who stated that on 08.11.2024, after alighting from a train at New Delhi Railway Station, he checked-in at New Karan Hotel, Pahar Ganj after paying Rs. 600/- for a room to the Applicant/Juned, who was the Manager in the said hotel.
1.2. It is stated after checking into the room no. 104, the complainant was
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 546/2025
Page 1 of 8
Digitally Signed By:RASHMI DABAS Signing Da te:2 0.02.2025 22:10:28
approached by co-accused Juned with a girl namely Supriya [Applicant] on the pretext of room service and thereafter co-accused Juned left from the room. It is stated after a while the girl (Supriya) started threatening the complainant for money otherwise she will falsely trap him in a false rape and molestation case. It is stated that later the girl i.e. Supriya had also called the co-accused Juned in order to extort money from the complainant. It is stated by the complainant that in such threat and coercion Rs. 15,050/was transferred by the complainant through UPI to one Jatin Kumar (owner of the hotel); and another Rs. 5,200/- was transferred to the co-accused Juned when the complainant tried to check out from the hotel. It is stated that a total of Rs, 20,250/- was extorted from the complainant.
1.3. It is states that after the complaint the FIR was registered and investigation ensured. It is during the course of investigation; co-accused Juned was arrested on 09.11.2024 and the same was identified by the complainant as well. Thereafter police custody remand of the co-accused Juned was obtained and in his disclosure statement it was disclosed by him that co-accused Jatin Kumar who is the lessee of the Hotel New Karan Guest House is the mater mind of the said extortion committed by the co-accused Juned along with the Applicant and the payment of Rs 15050/- extorted from the complainant was credited to the account of co-accused Jatin Kumar.
1.4. It is stated that during investigation Applicant Supriya Shahi was also arrested at the instance of co-accused Juned on 12.11.2024 and during the Police Custody Remand in her disclosure statement she as well confirmed the fact that she committed the offence of extortion on instruction of coaccused Jatin Kumar. Thereafter the Applicant and co-accused Juned were
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 546/2025
Page 2 of 8
Digitally Signed By:RASHMI DABAS Signing Da te:2 0.02.2025 22:10:28
sent to Judicial custody.
1.5. It is stated that, thereafter, during the course of investigation, the bank statement of the co-accused Juned was obtained and it was found that Rs 600/- and Rs 5200/- was credited to his account by the complainant. Arguments on behalf of the Applicant
2.1. He states that investigation qua the Applicant stands complete and the charge-sheet already stands filed before the Trial Court.
2.2. He submits that the subject matter of the complaint is the money transaction with regards to Rs. 15,050/- and Rs. 5200/-. He states that neither of the transactions admittedly have been made between the complainant and the Applicant herein. He states that the said transactions were made between the complainant and co-accused persons Juned and Jatin Kumar who have already returned the said amount.
2.3. He states that the owner of the hotel i.e. co-accused Jatin Kumar has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 09.01.2025 in BAIL APPLN. 4507/2024, whereas he is the master mind as per the prosecution. Hence Applicant is entitled to bail on principles of parity.
2.4. He states that the Applicant may be put to stringent terms and undertakes to make herself available as and when directed by this Court or as required by the police officials /IO.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 546/2025 By:RASHMI DABAS Signing Da te:2 0.02.2025 22:10:28
Page 3 of 8
Arguments on behalf of the State
3.1. He, however, fairly states that the investigation is complete and chargesheet qua the Applicant and co-accused Juned stands filed before the Trial Court and the matter is next listed before the Trial Court on 03.03.2025.
3.2. He states that charge-sheet co accused Jatin Kumar has not been filed and the IO shall file the same in due course.
3.3. He confirms that there are no other involvements of the Applicant nor has she been prosecuted earlier in any case of any kind.
3.4. Learned APP has handed over a status report dated 19.02.2025. He is directed to have the same placed on record.
Findings and Analysis
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 546/2025 By:RASHMI DABAS Signing Da te:2 0.02.2025 22:10:28
Page 4 of 8
verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.
Signature Not Verified
BAIL APPLN. 546/2025
Page 5 of 8
Digitally Signed By:RASHMI DABAS Signing Da te:2 0.02.2025 22:10:28
monetary transaction between the complainant and Applicant. The Applicant has contended that she has been employed by co-accused Jatin Kumar and she was present at the hotel in her capacity as an employee. Thus, the allegation of the complainant that the Applicant threatened him would be subject to proof at trial. Further the Applicant is stated to have no criminal antecedents and nothing has been pointed out to show that Applicant may tamper with the evidence or influence any witness. Even though in a cursory manner, learned APP pointed out that Applicant may be a flight risk, however, the same can be taken care of by putting appropriate conditions.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 546/2025 By:RASHMI DABAS Signing Da te:2 0.02.2025 22:10:28
Page 6 of 8
1 State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 546/2025 By:RASHMI DABAS Signing Da te:2 0.02.2025 22:10:28
Page 7 of 8
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
FEBRUARY 19, 2025/ hp/ms
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed BAIL APPLN. 546/2025 By:RASHMI DABAS Signing Da te:2 0.02.2025 22:10:28
Page 8 of 8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in FIR No. 646/2024 for alleged extortion.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjay Chandra v. CBIRelied on¶6
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40 · Who else cites this
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶7
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 964 · Who else cites this
Prabhakar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar PradeshRelied on¶8
Prabhakar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2020) 11 SCC 648 · Who else cites this
State of Kerala v. RaneefReferred
State of Kerala v. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Supriya Shahi @ Manju
The State NCT of Delhi
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
