Increasing Misuse Of Social Media To Intimidate Minors: Delhi HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Man Accused Of Blackmailing 15-Yr-Old Girl

The High Court was considering an application seeking pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 354(D)/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (POCSO).

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan remarked, “The present case underscores the increasing misuse of social media and technology to exploit and intimidate vulnerable individuals, particularly minors.”

Advocate Kashif Athar appeared for the Applicant while Additional Public Prosecutor Rajkumar appeared for the Respondents.

The FIR, in the case, was registered based on the complaint filed by the complainant/victim, a 15- year-old minor girl studying in Class XI, alleging that she was subjected to severe harassment, blackmail, and sexual exploitation by the applicant, Saiful Khan, and the co-accused Sameer.

The complainant alleged that in November 2022, the co-accused Sameer had begun following her on her way to school and persistently asked her to be his friend. After a year, he contacted her via Instagram, claiming that he sought a “normal friendship.” The victim reluctantly started communicating with him, and during their interactions, she shared a few photographs of herself, and in all of them she was clothed. It was alleged that in May 2024, the applicant contacted the victim on Instagram, introducing himself as Sameer’s friend. Despite her refusal to communicate, Saiful sent the victim a photograph where she was seen nude and threatened to make it public.

Fearing public humiliation, the victim was coerced into communicating with Saiful through Instagram video calls where she was forced to remove her clothes. The accused used these recordings to repeatedly blackmail her. Later, co-accused - Sameer also began threatening the victim, demanding that she engage in similar video calls with him. Succumbing to the coercion, the victim complied, and coaccused - Sameer recorded these calls as well. The complainant alleged that she was continuously threatened by them that her photographs and videos would be made public.

It was contended by the applicant’s Counsel that the applicant has been falsely implicated. It was further emphasized that the applicant had left India for employment in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in early September 2024 and he returned to India voluntarily in November 2024 upon learning about the present FIR.

On the contrary, the State expressed concerns over the likelihood of the applicant attempting to intimidate the victim or influence witnesses if released on bail. The nature of the threats previously made by the applicant indicated a significant risk of obstruction in the course of justice.

The Bench reiterated that the power to grant a pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of the BNSS is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly. Thus, pre-arrest bail cannot be granted in a routine manner. Referring to State v. Anil Sharma; (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Bench said, “It is settled law that the custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).”

“The allegations against the applicant are of a grave and serious nature, involving the exploitation and sexual abuse of a minor girl. The applicant is accused of coercing the victim into engaging in sexually explicit acts over video calls, recording the same without her consent, and using these recordings to blackmail her repeatedly. Such acts not only violate the personal dignity and privacy of the victim but also constitute serious offences under the BNS and the POCSO Act”, the Bench said.

It was further noticed that the allegations against the applicant point towards the exploitation of a child by coercing and blackmailing her for pornographic purposes. The alleged recording and sharing of explicit material involving the minor victim is a grave offence. “In light of the allegations, perusal of the statement of the victim and co-accused Sameer, this Court finds that granting pre-arrest bail would set an inappropriate precedent and undermine the societal interest in safeguarding children from such reprehensible acts”, the Bench asserted.

“The actions of the applicant exemplify the disturbing trend of exploiting the anonymity and reach of social media platforms to perpetrate sexual crimes against minors. This Court cannot ignore the broader societal implications of such acts and the urgent need to send a strong message against the misuse of Technology”, the Bench held.

Considering that the present case involved electronic gadgets and electronic evidence, the Bench opined that the task of the Investigating Agency seems arduous and they need to be given a fair play in the joints to investigate the matter in the manner they deem appropriate. “While the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty are fundamental principles of law, they must be considered in conjunction with the gravity of the offence, its societal impact, and the need for a comprehensive and unobstructed investigation”, it added.

Noting that the material presented by the prosecution established a prima facie involvement of the applicant and granting pre-arrest bail to the applicant would undoubtedly impede further investigation, the Bench dismissed the application.

Cause Title: Saiful Khan v. State & Anr [Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:9378]

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocates Kashif Athar & Faraz Mirza

Respondents: APP Rajkumar, SI Pooja

Click here to read/ download Order