Headnote
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 308, 351, 61 – Criminal Procedure – Anticipatory bail – Overseas extortion through WhatsApp – Flight risk – Non-cooperation in investigation – Prior criminal antecedents.
Held, anticipatory bail cannot be granted where allegations disclose a serious and organised extortion conspiracy operating from foreign jurisdictions, supported by prima facie material including passport records, travel history, disclosure statements of co-accused, and call details. Where the accused is alleged to have procured foreign SIM cards, facilitated extortion calls from abroad, and attempted to evade arrest by circumventing immigration checks despite the issuance of a Look Out Circular, the apprehension of flight risk stands fortified. Non-production of crucial electronic evidence such as the mobile phone used in commission of the offence reflects lack of cooperation with investigation. Previous criminal involvements further aggravate the gravity. The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary to unearth the conspiracy and trace digital evidence, and that grant of anticipatory bail would prejudice a fair and effective investigation. The application was accordingly dismissed.
Court’s decision
The Delhi High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail to an accused alleged to be part of an international extortion racket operating through WhatsApp calls from Malaysia and Dubai. The Court held that the seriousness of allegations, corroborative travel records, and demonstrated attempts to evade arrest disentitled the petitioner from pre-arrest protection. Emphasising that anticipatory bail is a discretionary relief meant to protect innocent persons from harassment and not those prima facie involved in organised crime, the Court dismissed the application.
Facts
The prosecution case stemmed from an FIR registered on the complaint of a Delhi-based businessman who alleged receiving extortion calls demanding ₹5 crore. These calls were made via WhatsApp from foreign numbers traced to Malaysia and later Dubai. During investigation, one co-accused was arrested, leading to the recovery of incriminating material including contact details and jail numbers. Another co-accused was subsequently apprehended with passport and boarding passes evidencing foreign travel.
During interrogation, the arrested co-accused disclosed that the extortion calls were made in conspiracy with the present petitioner, who allegedly arranged foreign SIM cards and coordinated calls while abroad. Passport records and immigration data obtained from authorities confirmed that the petitioner and the co-accused were together in Malaysia and Dubai at the relevant time when the extortion calls were made.
Issues
The principal issue before the Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita framework, considering the gravity of the offence, the nature of evidence, alleged non-cooperation with investigation, risk of absconding, and criminal antecedents.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioner argued that he had joined the investigation pursuant to interim protection granted by a trial court and had cooperated with the investigating agency. It was contended that mere travel abroad could not establish criminal conspiracy and that the allegations were based primarily on disclosure statements of co-accused. The petitioner also asserted that he was willing to hand over his mobile phone, explaining that the earlier device had been damaged while he was abroad.
Respondent’s arguments
Opposing the bail plea, the State contended that the petitioner played an active and central role in the extortion conspiracy by procuring foreign SIM cards and facilitating WhatsApp calls threatening the complainant. It was argued that travel records conclusively established the petitioner’s presence abroad at the time of extortion calls. The State further highlighted that the petitioner avoided arrest by travelling from Dubai to Nepal and then entering India by road despite a Look Out Circular. Non-production of the mobile phone and prior criminal involvements were cited as strong grounds to deny anticipatory bail.
Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated settled principles governing anticipatory bail, particularly those laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra. Factors such as the nature and gravity of accusations, prima facie evidence, likelihood of fleeing from justice, and antecedents must be carefully weighed. In cases involving organised crime, cyber-enabled extortion, and cross-border operations, courts must exercise greater caution as custodial interrogation may be essential to trace electronic evidence and wider conspiracies.
Precedent analysis
Relying on Supreme Court jurisprudence on anticipatory bail, the Court emphasised that where allegations are supported by objective material such as travel history and electronic footprints, the plea for pre-arrest bail deserves strict scrutiny. The judgment applied the principle that anticipatory bail should not be granted where it may impede investigation or embolden accused persons to evade the law.
Court’s reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner’s presence abroad at the time of extortion calls was corroborated by passport and immigration data. His failure to produce the mobile phone used during the alleged offence, coupled with evasive conduct in returning to India via Nepal despite an active Look Out Circular, demonstrated a clear risk of flight. The Court also noted the petitioner’s previous involvement in serious criminal cases, which further weighed against granting discretionary relief. In these circumstances, anticipatory bail was held to be incompatible with the interests of justice.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, holding that the allegations disclosed a serious and organised extortion conspiracy with international dimensions. The Court concluded that custodial interrogation was necessary and that granting anticipatory bail would prejudice the investigation.
Implications
The ruling reinforces judicial intolerance towards organised cyber extortion networks operating from foreign jurisdictions. It signals that courts will place significant weight on digital evidence, travel records, and conduct indicative of evasion while assessing bail. The judgment also underscores that anticipatory bail is not a shield for accused persons with demonstrable flight risk and criminal antecedents.
Case-law references
- Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra – Laid down parameters governing grant of anticipatory bail.
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal – Abuse of criminal process and scope of judicial intervention (principle contextually noted).
FAQs
1. Can anticipatory bail be denied solely on foreign travel?
No, but when foreign travel coincides with the commission of the offence and is corroborated by evidence, it becomes a significant factor.
2. Does non-production of a mobile phone affect bail?
Yes, withholding crucial electronic evidence indicates non-cooperation and can justify denial of anticipatory bail.
3. Are prior criminal cases relevant for anticipatory bail?
Yes, antecedents are a critical factor while assessing the likelihood of reoffending or absconding.
