Mumbai Court Denies Bail in Social Media Extortion Case

Criminal Social Media Extortion

Posted by: Aditya Pratap Law Offices on 2024-07-19

---

Social media extortion cases like the recent incident in Mumbai illustrate the vulnerability people face online. They involve exploiting trust for financial gain and reputational damage, highlighting the need for strong safeguards against digital exploitation and cyber threats.

The case originated when an informant who is a junior artist from Jogeshwari(W), Mumbai lodged the report in the Amboli Police Station regarding the applicant represented by Advocate Aditya Pratap. At present an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). was filed by the applicant in the Court Of Sessions, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai.  

The applicant faces charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 406, 354-C, 354-D, 384, 506, and 509, as well as under Sections 67-A and 66-E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).

Informant Contentions

 The artist asserts that she was approached by the applicant who sought to manage her career. Gaining her trust, he accessed her social media account and subsequently created a fake Instagram profile under a false name. From this bogus account, he shared her photos with her friend Shahid and relatives. She claims that he clandestinely filmed her and threatened to publicize the videos on social media unless she complied with his demands, extorting Rs. 17,74,000 in cash and Rs. 5,10,000 via Google Pay. He also stalked her and threatened suicide, blaming her if anything happened to him. Additionally, he defamed her by falsely labeling her as a call girl in messages sent to others. It was then the informant finally lodged the report. 

Applicant Contentions

Conversely, the applicant argues in his plea for pre-arrest bail that the informant took money from him in the amount of Rs. 20,000,000 under the pretense that they would establish an imitation jewelry business in Dehradun. He contends that to hide the money she received from him, the informant falsely accused him in this case. Additionally, he stated that in March 2023, he reported the informant to the police. She cooked up a bogus narrative to accuse him of a crime he didn't commit after hearing about his complaint. He contends that he ought to be freed on bond because there is nothing left to be gained from him.

Court Proceedings and Decision

Nonetheless, the state filed a reply. The State insists that a thorough investigation is needed to find and retrieve the videos, photographs, and fake Social Media account made by the applicant. Therefore, they oppose granting bail to him. This was followed by the informant appearing through her advocate and claiming that not only more than 20,00,000/­ were being extracted but also harassed on social media so the investigating agency must be given a fair opportunity to carry out a detailed investigation, therefore, the application may not be allowed.  

The applicant's attorney insists on his innocence. The applicant went to the police station, made a statement, and turned in his cell phone after receiving the notification under Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. He contends that he ought to be freed on bond as there is no evidence of his guilt left. 

Still, after considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, and also considering FIR, the contents of the bail application, and the documents produced on record by both sides the court concluded that the allegations against applicant were serious and sensitive in nature. The judge stressed the need for a comprehensive investigation into such crimes to uphold justice and equity. The court rejected Applicant' anticipatory bail application, deeming it unsuitable for approval.