Bengaluru, Karnataka – In a swift decision, the LXIV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (CCH-65) at Bengaluru, Smt. Kalpana M.S., granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Anil Kumar V. (Accused No. 7), in a case of alleged extortion. The bail order, pronounced on September 5, 2023, pertains to Cr. No. 479/2023 registered by the CCB Police Station (West) for the offence punishable under Section 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The court’s decision hinged on the nature of the offence, the lack of direct implication of the petitioner in the initial complaint, a significant delay in lodging the FIR, and apparent doubts regarding the complainant’s claims of repeated payments.
Allegations in the Complaint
The complainant, Saadiq Khan, who runs a mutton shop, alleged that about four months prior to the complaint, individuals identified as Atmananda, Anand, and their associates approached him. They allegedly demanded ₹5,00,000/- and threatened to seize his shop if he failed to pay. The complainant stated that he initially paid ₹2,00,000/-.
The extortion continued, with the accused allegedly returning on March 29, 2023. When the complainant pleaded insolvency, the accused reportedly brought police personnel from K.R. Puram Police Station and facilitated the seizure of his shop. The complaint further detailed that after the seizure, the accused collected additional amounts from the complainant on various dates: ₹1,00,000/- and smaller sums ranging from ₹20,000/- to ₹25,000/- on May 24, June 15, June 28, and July 28, 2023, also demanding online transfers.
Petitioner’s Defence and Judicial Scrutiny
The petitioner, Anil Kumar V., sought pre-arrest bail, vehemently arguing that he was innocent and falsely implicated. His primary points of defense were:
- The petitioner’s name (Anil Kumar V.) was not mentioned in the original complaint or the First Information Report (FIR).
- The PhonePe number cited by the Investigating Officer in their report opposing bail does not belong to him.
- He has no criminal antecedents and hails from a respectable family, eliminating the risk of him fleeing justice.
The prosecution, represented by the Learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the application, submitting the Investigating Officer’s report.
Judicial Analysis and Finding of Doubt
The court, presided over by Smt. Kalpana M.S., undertook a detailed analysis of the records.
1. Triviality of Offence and Right to Liberty:
The court first established that the alleged offence of extortion (Section 384 IPC) is triable by a Magistrate and is neither punishable with death penalty nor imprisonment for life. The judgment cited the fundamental legal doctrine laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Balachandh @ Baliay (AIR 1977 SC 2447): “Bail is a rule and jail is an exception.” This doctrine is essential for safeguarding the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
2. Delay in Lodging FIR:
The complaint narrates incidents of extortion starting four months prior to the FIR date, with payments made in March, May, June, and July 2023. The court noted a delay in lodging the FIR, which raised questions about the complaint’s authenticity or urgency.
3. Doubtful Payments:
Most significantly, the court expressed doubt regarding the complainant’s claim that he continued to pay large sums even after his shop was seized by the police. The court questioned the motive behind these repeated payments, stating, “For what reason, complainant paid money to the accused persons, is not forthcoming. The further allegation of the complainant that he has paid ₹1,00,000/- to the petitioner even after seizure of his shop by respondent police, creates doubt in the mind of court.”
4. Lack of Direct Implication:
Coupled with the fact that the petitioner’s name was absent from the initial complaint, the court concluded that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for pre-arrest bail.
Conclusion and Strict Conditions
Balancing the need to protect individual liberty and dignity against the need for a free and fair trial and the welfare of society—a balance emphasized in the Supreme Court’s decision in Satender Kumar Antil V/s. Central Bureau of Investigation—the court decided to grant the relief sought.
The anticipatory bail petition filed by Anil Kumar V. (Accused No. 7) was allowed. The court directed the CCB Police to release the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest, subject to the execution of a personal bond for ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two sureties for the like sum.
The following seven stringent conditions were imposed to ensure the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation and trial process:
- Petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer and cooperate with the investigation within 15 days from the date of the order.
- He must furnish his address proof and the address proof of his sureties.
- He shall mark his attendance at the respondent police station on the 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month between 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., until the conclusion of the investigation or for a period of 3 months, whichever is earlier.
- He shall not make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
- He shall not leave the jurisdiction of India without the prior permission of the trial court.
- He shall not involve in any criminal activities.
- Any change in the residential address must be intimated to the trial court immediately.
The court explicitly warned that violation of any of these conditions would result in the cancellation of bail. The order effectively safeguards the petitioner’s liberty while ensuring his availability for the ongoing investigation into the extortion case.