'Sextortion' Is A Significant Social Menace & Profound Violation Of Privacy: Delhi HC Rejects Anticipatory Bail Plea
|The Delhi High Court has underscored the gravity of 'sextortion,' terming it a profound violation of privacy and a substantial social menace.
The Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan highlighted the detrimental impact of sextortion on individual dignity and the formidable challenges it poses to law enforcement agencies due to its clandestine and cross-jurisdictional nature.
"Sextortion represents a profound violation of privacy and is a significant social menace. It involves the exploitation of obtained intimate images and videos to extort money or favours from victims, often leading to severe psychological trauma. This cyber-enabled crime not only undermines individual dignity but also poses serious challenges to law enforcement due to its clandestine and cross-jurisdictional nature," remarked the Court.
The Court's observations came in a case where three men were denied Anticipatory Bail after being accused of extorting Rs. 16 lakhs from an individual in a sextortion scheme. The victim alleged that he received a WhatsApp video call from an unknown woman who coerced him into a private video call and subsequently recorded it.
According to the victim's account, he received multiple calls from various phone numbers, with the callers posing as police officers or YouTube employees. They demanded money from him under the guise of removing the video from social media platforms. Additionally, the victim claimed that the accused threatened him with false accusations in a murder case related to the woman in the video, using it as leverage to coerce him into settling the matter with her family.
The defense argued that the accused were falsely implicated based on the statements of co-accused individuals, asserting that there was no incriminating evidence against them. Conversely, the prosecution opposed the bail pleas, contending that all the accused were active members of an organized crime syndicate engaged in sextortion.
The Court dismissed the Anticipatory Bail pleas, citing the investigation's discovery of multiple complaints and the accused persons' "habitual engagement" in such criminal activities. It emphasized the justified concern over the applicants' potential influence on evidence and the likelihood of committing similar offenses if not detained.
"Considering the status report filed by the State, it cannot be held, at this stage, that the investigation is being carried out with the intention to injure or humiliate the applicant. The nature and the gravity of the allegations are serious. Specific allegations have also been made that the applicants have been indulging into similar offences on earlier occasions," the Court said.
The Court further elucidated that the investigation, thus far, did not suggest any attempt to falsely implicate the applicants. The evidence presented by the prosecution, including digital records, established a prima facie involvement of the Applicants in the sextortion scheme.
"The investigation conducted thus, so far does not indicate that the applicant is sought to be falsely implicated. The material presented by the prosecution establish a prima facie involvement of the applicants. The evidences, including digital records and communication, link the applicants to the alleged offence. It is true that the disclosure statements of the co-accused persons is not admissible unless corroborated by supporting evidence however, no reason has been indicated as to why the co-accused persons arrested in the present case would unnecessarily try to implicate the present accused persons. The same requires investigation," the Court said in its order dated April 24.
Considering the nature of the offence, the Court said, "No ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants is made out." It also clarified, "Any observations made in the present order are for the purpose of deciding the present bail application and should not influence the outcome of the Trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case." Accordingly, the Court disposed of the Appeals.
Cause Title: Soukin v. The NCT State of New Delhi
Appearance:-
Petitioner: Advocates Nagma Bee, Rashid Khan, Altaf Hussain, Aftab Hussain
Respondent: Advocates Amol Sinha (ASC), Kshitiz Garg, Ashvini Kumar
Click here to read/download the Order