Back
Rape or Honey Trap? Delhi HC Frees Australian Resident from ' ' Tag, Quashes LOC
In a significant ruling on , the quashed the declaration of Manish Popli , an Australian citizen accused in a 2018 rape case, as a under . Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma criticized procedural lapses, including failure to properly serve notices despite known foreign address, and ongoing communications that contradicted the absconder label. The court also lifted the and halted related coercive actions, directing Popli to appear in trial courts within four weeks.
Hotel Encounter Sparks Cross-FIR Firestorm
The saga began on , when an 18-year-old woman alleged Manish Popli raped her at Hotel Swagath in Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, claiming he later offered ₹1,000 and chocolates while professing love. She and her aunt approached Defence Colony police station but initially held off on formal action.
Popli, running immigration services in Australia with his wife, countered with a honey-trap narrative . He claimed police lured him to the station on visa pretext on March 12, where the woman and relatives coerced him into paying ₹40 lakhs plus ₹10 lakhs more, captured on Select City Mall CCTV. He fled to Australia on March 17.
Cross-complaints followed: Popli's FIR No. 281/2018 ( ) accused extortion under . The woman's application led to FIR No. 162/2018 (Defence Colony) under . A by Popli prompted the High Court to transfer both probes to on , relabeling them RC SI 2020 S 0003 (his case) and RC SI 2020 S 0002 (hers).
'Concealed Abroad, Still Served at Delhi Doorstep': Petitioner's Plea
Popli argued the proclamation order of by was vitiated. Despite disclosing his Cheltenham, Australia address in his writ, police served summons only at his Malviya Nagar home, ignoring channels. He claimed full cooperation: emailing willingness in June 2020, complying with notices via WhatsApp (documents supplied January/April 2021), and even seeking Australian travel permission (denied amid COVID).
No mention of his proclaimed status during calls—even post-charge-sheet ( , labeling him absconder). He highlighted his application to testify as prosecution witness in his own extortion case (RC 0003), blocked by the LOC, and opposed 's push for extradition warrants.
's Stand: 'Evasion, Not Exile'
insisted Popli deliberately evaded physical appearance since FIR registration, justifying ( ), LOC, and proclamation. They cited the 2020 High Court order refusing recall without in-person surrender, fair probe yielding rape evidence, and no pre-COVID compliance. Extradition, they argued, was lawful for non-appearance.
Court's Razor-Sharp Scrutiny: No Absconder If Phone Keeps Ringing
Justice Sharma dissected the flaws. Police knew Popli's Australian stay (via writ parties) yet affixed notices domestically, breaching
mandates. Citing
, she noted:
"no effort was made to serve the petitioner... through the
"
, mirroring here.
Post- takeover, interactions belied : notices issued/complied, no proclamation disclosure. “A person who is in continuous communication with the investigating agency and is responding to its directions cannot... be said to be ,” the court held (Para 42). COVID barriers excused physical absence.
The January 2020 order didn't bar challenge, as the December 2019 proclamation wasn't disclosed then.
Key Observations
“despite having knowledge of the petitioner’s residence abroad, no effort was made... to serve summons or warrants upon him at his Australian address.” (Para 33)
“the failure of the investigating agency to inform the petitioner about the proclamation proceedings, despite being in regular contact with him, assumes significance.” (Para 42)
“the inability of the petitioner to travel to India during the relevant period, owing to restrictions imposed by the Australian authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic, cannot be held against him.” (Para 43)
Relief with a Deadline: Appear or Face Fresh Heat
The court set aside the order, quashed LOC/extradition steps, and all Section 82/83 actions. Popli must appear in four weeks; trials proceed afresh.
This ruling fortifies safeguards for NRIs: proper service abroad is non-negotiable, and agency silence during cooperation undermines absconder tags. As news reports echoed, "Rape or honey trap?" —the merits await trial, but procedural justice prevailed.
