The severity of the allegations, the likelihood of tampering with evidence, and the potential for absconding are crucial factors in determining bail applications.

1. By way of the present petition, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), the petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in FIR No.14/2017 under Sections 385/387/419/420/506/467/468/471/506/376/& 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 and Sections 66D/66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000, registered at P.S. Crime Branch, Delhi. The petitioner is stated to be in judicial custody since 03.02.2017. Status report is on record.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 02.02.2017, the complainant, a 39 year old woman, US citizen had approached the Crime Branch with complaint of cheating, sexual assault and extortion committed against her in India by the petitioner. In 2016 she joined the social platform Facebook and came in contact with one MK Faheem/petitioner who lured her and persuaded her for physical meetings. Initially the complainant and the petitioner were casual friends but their friendship got intense as time passed and they decided to meet for the first time on 19.11.2016 in Leela Hotel, Gurgaon. They again met on 21.11.2016 in J.W Mariot Hotel, Aerocity, Delhi. The petitioner further won confidence of the complainant in the name of marriage assurances and became physically intimated with her. In the guise of love and affection, petitioner also managed to cheat the complainant of 86,000 USD on various false pretexts. The petitioner had got the cheated amount transferred to Afghanistan through western union money transfer and further received this amount in India through alternate ways. The petitioner also threatened her to upload the indecent photographs and videos on the internet that he clicked of her. On these facts the FIR No.14/2017 got registered against the petitioner and investigation was taken up.

3. Mr. K.K Manan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the complainant is a well educated 39 years old woman and is capable of making her own decisions; that the petitioner never withheld his identity and the complainant always knew that the petitioner was from Afghanistan; that the complainant had infact sent the money through Western Union to her relatives in Afghanistan and not to the petitioner; that the petitioner has never received a single penny in his own account; that whatever relationship ever existed in between the parties was always consensual and the question of promise to marry never arose; that significantly the complainant stated that the petitioner was involved in some Interpol case and was a scammer but she thereafter again gave money; that all the rooms in the hotels where both the parties stayed were booked in the name of the complainant; that there is no iota of evidence to show that the petitioner had forged the voter id card or the adoption deed; that no case under Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioner as there is no dishonest inducement to the complainant to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security; that the petitioner did not extort any money from the complainant inasmuch as she herself willingly and voluntarily kept giving money to the petitioner; that Smt. Ansari Begum has never denied that the petitioner was adopted by her and the same is not denied by her own son Ghulam Rasool; that moreover the adoption deed was never prepared by the petitioner or used and thus there is no question of forgery being committed by him; that the entire case of the complainant is concocted and false and no offence is made out against the petitioner; that the petitioner is a father of two children and his wife is pregnant and if the present bail is not granted to the petitioner it would adversely affect his family and his career.

4. Per contra Mr. Mukesh Kumar APP for the State assisted by Mr. Manoj Taneja, learned counsel for the complainant, strongly opposed the