Case Summary and Outcome

The High Court of Delhi in India dismissed an anticipatory bail application of three individuals accused of involvement in a sextortion racket. The accused were charged with recording a compromising video and then threatening to release the video on social media unless a large sum of money was paid. The Court recognized sextortion as a “serious invasion of privacy and a growing social threat”, involving the misuse of intimate images to extort money from victims. It also acknowledged the psychological harm it causes and the difficulties in addressing it due to its cross-jurisdictional nature. Given the gravity of the allegations and the possibility of tampering with evidence, the Court rejected the plea for anticipatory bail.

Facts

On October 10, 2022, an Indian man, Dewan Singh Malik, received a video call on WhatsApp from an unknown woman. The woman requested a “private video call” which she recorded. Soon after the video call, several people impersonating police officers and YouTube employees called Malik, accusing him of murdering the lady. They told Malik that if he paid INR 16,00,000 (approximately US$19,000) they would remove the video from different social media platforms – YouTube, Facebook and Instagram – and settle the matter with the woman’s family.

On December 12, 2022, Malik filed a First Information Report (FIR) at the Police Station Special Cell, Delhi for extortion, cheating and false impersonation – offences punishable under sections 170, 388, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

On December 22, 2022, three people named Shabbir, Sahjad and Rafeek were arrested. They revealed the names of Soukin, Talim and Timmi as being involved by providing SIM cards to call the victims and open bank accounts to receive the money. On further investigation, it was found that the phone numbers used to call Malik were registered in the names of Soukin, Talim and Timmi. The bank accounts linked with the mobile numbers of Soukin and Talim also received the amount of INR 4,00,000 and INR 2,00,000 respectively from Malik.

Soukin, Talim and Timmi filed pre-arrest/anticipatory bail applications to the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) which were rejected. They then filed a pre-arrest/anticipatory bail application to the High Court of Delhi under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Decision Overview

Justice Amit Mahajan of the High Court of Delhi delivered this order. The central issue before for the Court’s consideration was whether the accused should be granted pre-arrest/anticipatory bail.

The accused argued that they had been falsely implicated as they neither had any connection to Malik nor received any amount from him. They submitted that the case filed against them was wrongful and malicious.

The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the allegations against the accused were serious as they were charged with  being involved in the organized crime syndicate and “sextortion” racket. [para. 9] The Prosecutor submitted that the accused had not cooperated in the investigation and requested the rejection of the pre-arrest application.

The Court found that the accused orchestrated a scheme involving a woman who contacted Malik via video calls, during which they obtained a compromising video and threatened to make the video “go viral” on social media and that Malik had been informed that the woman in the video had allegedly committed suicide. The Court pointed out that the accused posed as police officers and used forged ID cards in their interactions and that the National Cyber Reporting Portal revealed ten complaints involving similar cases by the accused and so concluded that this case was not an isolated incident but part of a larger pattern of fraudulent activities by the accused.

In examining the evidence against the accused, the Court noted that the initial three people arrested had disclosed the involvement of the accused and that the police investigation revealed the use of the accused’s SIM cards in more than 50 different devices within two years. It also referred to investigation findings that these mobile numbers were associated with a single IMEI number which was connected to a mobile number registered in Soukin’s name and that there had been the transfer of money in bank accounts linked to Soukin and Talim.

Looking at the specific allegations against the accused and the gravity of the allegations, the Court refused to grant them anticipatory bail. It acknowledged the possibility of their potential influence over evidence and ability to commit similar offences if granted bail and found that, based on the investigation conducted so far, there was no indication that the accused were being falsely implicated.

Observing that the power under section 438 of CrPC is an extraordinary power not to be used routinely, the Court rejected the accused’s anticipatory bail applications.

In rejecting the bail applications, the Court commented  on image abuse. The Court defined sextortion as a “cyber-enabled crime” which involves “the exploitation of obtained intimate images and videos to extort money or favours from victims” and observed that it “represents a profound violation of privacy and is a significant social menace”. [para. 19]  The Court acknowledged the harmful effects of sextortion, highlighting its potential to cause psychological trauma and erode individual dignity but also recognized the complexities of addressing sextortion, particularly due to its “clandestine and cross-jurisdictional nature”. [para. 19]