Amit Malik v. State

Raj PagariyaCase Summary

Bail application in a case involving stalking and recording an obscene video for blackmailing

Amit Malik v. State
In the High Court of Delhi
B.A. 1400/2021 and Crl.M.A. 6628/2021
Before Justice Subramonium Prasad
Decided on November 8, 2021

Relevancy of the case: Bail application in a case involving stalking and recording an obscene video for blackmailing

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 438)
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 354, 354D, 506)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The petitioner and the complainant met through a common contact and became friends in May 2020. She shared her ongoing dispute with her husband regarding a flat with the petitioner. The petitioner, after that, offered to buy the said flat.
  • In August 2020, her husband obtained a stay order against the sale of the flat. She informed the petitioner that she would not need help regarding the flat.
  • In October 2020, the petitioner asked her to accompany her to Kalka Mandir. After he picked her up from her residence, he recklessly drove the car and molested her. He continued molesting and assaulting her if she did not sign on blank papers or transfer the flat to him.
  • He also threatened her with spoiling her son’s life. Furthermore, he took an obscene video and started blackmailing her to fulfil his sexual desires.
  • The petitioner first approached the Additional Sessions Judge, who rejected his bail application on April 16, 2021.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates (if any)

  • The petitioner’s counsel:
    • He submitted that the petitioner has paid ₹20 lakhs so far. The total consideration for the flat was ₹32 lakhs. The petitioner and the prosecutrix share a good relationship as he has given gifts like a mobile phone.
    • The petitioner has sent multiple legal notices to the complainant to return the money. However, when the complainant did not respond, the petitioner filed an FIR for cheating on March 04, 2021.
    • The current FIR is a counterblast against the petitioner’s FIR in March.
    • Photos, videos, and WhatsApp conversations show that the victim was not under any pressure.
  • The public prosecutor presented the status report to the court. There are a total of five FIRs against the petitioner. He has been previously convicted in one of them.
  • The complainant’s counsel intervened in the bail application. He submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the bail by looking at his antecedents. Once released, he will pose a constant threat.

Opinion of the Bench

  • The petitioner has joined the investigation and given his mobile phone to the investigating agency. The investigation is nearing completion.

Final Decision

  • The bench accepted the bail application with conditions.