IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J.
Anil Kumar Rathore - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Bail Appln. 2970 of 2021
Decided On : 20-09-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. definition and details of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the petitioner's involvement. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. past behavior and ongoing investigations. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's analysis of evidence and conduct. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. understanding extortion as per ipc. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. final decision on the bail application. (Para 15) |
ORDER
Rajnish Bhatnagar, J. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 582/2021 under Sections 387 /120-B IPC registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.07.2021 complainant received a call on WhatsApp from one international number i.e. +1(250)9994923 on his mobile number +919810373333. It is submitted that the complainant was near Rajouri Garden Metro Station and was travelling from Defence Colony via metro when he received the said call. He was terrified after receiving the said call and was left numb for some time and he is under constant threat even while making the instant complaint. The caller identified himself as Kala Jatheri and said that "Tu sunny walia chattarpur wale ki bohot pairvi karta hai, agar dobara uske saath dikha to tujhe aur tere bete ko khatam kar denge. Ab 2 din mein 50 lakh rupay ka intezaam kar aur hum batayenge kisko aur kahan dene hai agar apni aur apne parivaar ki jaan bachana chahta hai to, Sumit Walia ko to hum jaan se maarenge hi tu apna dekh liyo agar paise nahi diye to tere ko jaan se maar denge agar dobara sumit ke sath dikha to, aur mere baare mein youtube pe check kar liyo." He further stated that, Sumit Walia @ Sunny is a resident of Farm no. 2, Silver Oak Lane, Satbari, Mehrauli, Delhi and some illegal construction and plotting was being done in adjacent farm no. 5, Silver Oak Lane, Satbari by Mr. Amit Vaid and his associate Anil Rathore (petitioner herein). On the complaint made by mother of Sumit Walia, illegal construction got demolished by civil authorities and also FIR was registered against Amit Vaid. He further submitted that the complainant had helped Sumit Walia to get demolish the said illegal construction and they have hired the Gangster Kala Jatheria and made call to him for extortion and life threat.
3. I have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned senior counsel for the complainant. I have also perused the status report filed on behalf of the State.
4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, and he had not made any telephone call. It is further submitted that petitioner is not directly linked to the complainant but is known through the person namely Sumit Walia. It is further submitted that complainant made the present complaint to DCP concerned and not to the PCR, and the petitioner has no connection with the alleged Kala Jatheria gang. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel that petitioner had joined the investigation on 09.07.2021 and also gave his statement to the concerned I.O. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the applicant/petitioner is an innocent person and has clean past antecedents. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the wife of the petitioner had gone to police station to hand over the mobile phone of the petitioner to IO. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that Section 383 IPC is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the alleged extortion call has not resulted in delivery of goods i.e. transfer of money, more so if the IO wanted to take out any information regarding the alleged incident/call he could have interrogated the other person namely Amit Vaid who is stated to be in judicial custody in Uttar Pradesh in another case. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that prosec
Extortion can be established through threats alone without the delivery of property, and non-cooperation with investigation negates the entitlement to bail.
The essential elements of extortion require an actual delivery of property under threat, which must be established for a charge under Section 387 IPC to be valid.
Section 384 IPC lays down for punishment for extortion.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.