Rohtak lawyer gets bail in Rs 1.5 crore morphed video extortion case flagged by Chandigarh judge

Opposing the bail plea, the prosecution submitted that the accused had played an active role in blackmailing the judicial officer and demanding money, and argued that his release could hamper the ongoing investigation.

However, counsel for the accused, Advocate Pardhuman Garg, argued that the accused had been falsely implicated and that his name had surfaced only through a co-accused’s disclosure statement. Garg contended that there was no direct evidence of any payment or recovery and that the case rested entirely on digital evidence already in police possession.

What the court said

Granting bail, Judicial Magistrate First Class Ajay noted that the delivery of property by the victim, who is in fear, is a must in order to constitute the offence of extortion; if there is no such delivery, then no offence of extortion would be made out.

The court said that if the prosecution’s assertions are taken at face value, it appears that the complainant was threatened that his reputation would be maligned by the accused by circulating objectionable videos if the complainant did not pay Rs 1.5 crore to the accused.

“Meaning thereby, the complainant was put in fear of injury, but there is no delivery of property, i.e. any amount by the complainant to the accused. The prosecution has not placed on record any document in order to prove that any delivery of property in the form of money took place between the complainant and the accused person at any point in time,” said the court.

The court also posed the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) the question, during the course of arguments, whether any amount had been paid by the complainant to the accused, including the applicant. APP for the state said no such transaction regarding money had taken place.

The court said that at this stage, no offence of extortion is attracted under Section 308(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The court further noted that the allegations may, at best, fall under the attempt to commit extortion. Taking into account that the accused had been in custody since April 11 and that the trial was likely to take time, the court held that no useful purpose would be served by continued incarceration.

The accused was granted bail on furnishing bonds of Rs 50,000 with one surety of the like amount.

Additional sessions judge’s complaint

In his complaint to the police, the additional sessions judge said that when he opened WhatsApp, he found a video clip purportedly containing manipulated and objectionable images of himself, allegedly intended to malign his reputation. The clip, he stated, disappeared shortly after being viewed.

The complainant also told the police that he had lost his mobile phone and suspected that data from the device had been misused to create the morphed content. He also expressed apprehension that the act could be linked to his handling of sensitive cases.

During the investigation, the police said the complainant received multiple calls, WhatsApp messages, and voice calls from another number, with the caller allegedly demanding Rs 1.5 crore and threatening to circulate the video clip if the amount was not paid.

Based on these allegations, the police invoked provisions including BNS Section 308(2).