Mumbai, April 27, 2022 – A Mumbai Sessions Court has granted bail to Lubna Azaan Wazir alias Sapna Wazir (47), one of the key accused in a sophisticated “honey trap” and extortion case involving over Rs. 3.26 crores. Additional Sessions Judge R.M. Sadrani, presiding over Court Room No. 37, allowed Wazir’s bail application (B.A. No. 627 of 2022) on a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 50,000 and a cash surety of Rs. 50,000.
Wazir was arrested on November 18, 2021, in connection with DCB CID C.R. No. 87 of 2021 (originally Sahar Police Station C.R. No. 467 of 2021). She faces serious charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 170 (personating a public servant), 342 (wrongful confinement), 364A (kidnapping for ransom), 384, 385, 388, 389 (all related to extortion), 392 (robbery), and 120B (criminal conspiracy).
The Allegations: A Three-Year Extortion Saga
The case stems from an FIR lodged by complainant Jitendra Kantilal Shah on November 18, 2021. Shah alleged that a conspiracy was hatched by the accused, including Akash, Manish, Lubna Azaan Wazir, and the wanted accused Monia. According to the FIR, on March 8, 2019, at the Lalit Hotel in Andheri, the accused created a “honey trap” and recorded a “fake video.” They then allegedly extorted Rs. 3.26 crores from Shah over a period, paid to co-accused Akash through Angadia services (traditional courier system for cash and valuables) and sometimes in cash, by threatening to report a false rape charge to the police.
Defense Highlights Delays, Discrepancies, and Recovered Evidence
Advocate Mubin Solkar, representing Wazir, argued for bail, stating that this was the first bail application filed after the charge sheet. He pointed out that except for Section 364A (kidnapping for ransom), all other sections are triable by a Magistrate’s Court, and the Sessions Case is yet to be committed. Wazir has been in custody since November 18, 2021.
Mr. Solkar also raised several crucial points:
- He claimed that the allegations were false and that the informant, Jitendra Kantilal Shah, was “cunning and shrewd” with four criminal cases pending against him.
- He questioned the delay of three years in lodging the FIR, especially since the informant, being familiar with legal procedures, purportedly sent money via courier service, indicating he was not under duress to prevent him from lodging a complaint earlier.
- He suggested that Rs. 1 lakh received by co-accused Akash was due to a business transaction, and noted the absence of banking transactions between the parties.
Prosecution’s Opposition and Court’s Crucial Observations
APP Abhijeet Gondwal, along with the investigating officer and Adv. Sakshi Mane for the intervener, opposed the bail application. They emphasized the serious nature of the offense under Section 364A, which carries a potential punishment up to death. They also raised concerns that the co-accused Monia was still wanted, and the alleged “honey trap” video was recorded on her mobile phone, leading to fears of evidence tampering if Wazir was released. They attempted to strengthen the 364A charge by showing CCTV footage, claiming it depicted the informant being taken to Wazir’s house on October 30, 2021, against his will for settlement.
However, Judge Sadrani’s observations significantly impacted the outcome of the bail plea. The court critically analyzed the prosecution’s claims:
- Section 364A (Kidnapping for Ransom) Allegation: The judge reviewed CCTV footage from Wazir’s building, specifically where the informant was seen in the lift with co-accused. The court noted that the informant appeared “free without any pressure and his movement was spontaneous without any force,” questioning the element of wrongful confinement or kidnapping at that point. The court remarked that “What happened in the Car is a matter of trial.”
- “Honey Trap” Video: The prosecution alleged the fake video was recorded at Lalit Hotel in the mobile of the wanted accused Monica. However, the FIR itself stated that the video was recorded by the applicant (Lubna Wazir) in her mobile. The court noted that Wazir’s mobile phone had already been recovered, thus eliminating the “possibility of tampering with the evidence” regarding the video.
- Investigation Progress: The court acknowledged that statements of other witnesses, including the Angadia operator, had already been recorded.
Considering these facts and circumstances, the court decided to grant bail.
Conditions for Bail
To secure the presence of the accused and prevent any interference with the investigation, the court imposed the following conditions:
- Wazir must execute a personal recognizance (PR) bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the same amount.
- In addition, she must deposit a cash surety of Rs. 50,000/-.
- She must furnish her detailed address and phone number when providing bail.
- She shall not directly or indirectly induce, threaten, or promise any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation so as to dissuade them from disclosing facts to the court or police.
- She shall not leave India without prior permission of the court.
The bail application has been disposed of accordingly.