Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 3022
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Mekala Rohan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
CRLP/3724/2025
The court emphasized that extortion requires consent obtained through fear, and the seriousness of the allegations justified the denial of bail.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 480 and 483 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 308(5), 329(4), 351(2), 352, and 232 - Bail application - Petitioner accused of threatening a witness and demanding money - Allegations include abusive language and threats of dire consequences - Court finds that the petitioner has committed grave offences and the investigation is ongoing. (Paras 1-7)
(B) Extortion - Definition and elements - The court discusses the necessary elements of extortion, emphasizing that consent obtained through fear is essential for establishing the offence. (Paras 4.1)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner allegedly threatened a witness involved in a previous case against him, demanding Rs.60,00,000/- and causing mental distress.
Findings of Court:
The court found specific allegations of threats and demands for money, indicating the seriousness of the offences.
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner’s actions constituted extortion and the appropriateness of granting bail given the ongoing investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allegations against the petitioner were serious, and the ongoing investigation warranted denial of bail.
Result: Criminal Petition dismissed.
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition has been filed under Sections 480 and 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by the petitioner/accused, seeking bail in Crime No.388 of 2025 of Madhapur Police Station, Cyberabad Commissionerate, registered for the offences under Sections 308(5), 329(4), 351(2), 352 and 232 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
2. Heard Mr. Y. Soma Srinath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State.
3. The case of prosecution in brief is that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint on 10.03.2025 stating that on the same day at about 1.30 p.m., when he was not present in the office, the petitioner came to his office and asked to meet a person of his staff and when that person is not available in the office, the petitioner abused his staff in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences, ruined his life and his staff is liable to pay him and his staff informed the said incident to him. When I enquired with the person for whom the petitioner came, he informed that he acted as a witness in F.I.R.No.1825 of 2024 on the file of the Cyber Crime Police Station, DD CCS, Hyderabad against the petitioner, who was arrested and sent to jail, and later he was released on bail and thereafter, the petitioner calling him over phone and threatening that his life is ruined for the actions by the witnesses in the above crime as such he is liable to pay amount and the petitioner sent threatening messages on whatsapp trying to dissuade him from testifying against the petitioner and also to give the whereabouts of the other witnesses and when he refused, the petitioner came to the office in search of him and making an issue. The de facto complainant further stated that the action of the petitioner has caused him and his staff an immense mental distress and fear for the safety and extortion by putting fear of life for all the witnesses of previous case. Hence, take action against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed the offence and he was falsely implicated in the present crime. Except the offence under Section 308(5) of the BNS, the other offences levelled against the petitioner are punishable with an imprisonment of less than seven years. The petitioner threatened the employees of the de facto complainant, which does not come within the meaning of extortion. The de facto complainant has not stated that the petitioner demanded the amount. However, the police in the remand case diary intentionally mentioned that the petitioner demanded an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- from LW.2 in the absence of any allegations in the complaint and also in the absence of any iota of evidence. Hence, the ingredients of Section 308(5) of the BNS are not applicable, in the absence of any allegations made in the complaint. The petitioner was arrested on 01.03.2025 and since then he is in judicial custody. The petitioner is ready and will to cooperate with the investigation and also abide by the conditions, which are going to be imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prayed to release the petitioner on bail.
4.1. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Salib @ Shalu @ Salim v. State of U.P. and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 947, wherein it is held in paragraph Nos.20 and 22, which reads as under:
“20. We take notice of the fact that Section 386 of the IPC has also been invoked. Section 386 of the IPC relates to extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt. Section 386 of the IPC runs as follows:
......
21. “Extortion has been defined under Section 383 of the IPC, as follows:
....
22. So from the aforesaid, it is clear that one of the necessary ingredients of the offence of extortion is that the victim must be induced to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, etc. That is to say, the delivery of the
