Shri. Anand Kumar Pramod Singh v. State of Maharashtra
In the High Court of Bombay
Criminal Bail Application No. 266 of 2016
Before Justice Revati Mohite Dere
Decided on March 11, 2016

Relevancy of the case: Bail application under Section 67

Statutes & Provisions Involved

• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 34, 376, 384, 500, 506)
• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 67)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• According to the complainant (aged 41 years), she met the applicant in September 2010.
• She wanted to join the gym and got in touch with the applicant who was the gym instructor. He advised her to join the ‘Body point Gym’ where he was working.
• The complainant was not able to cope with the gym timings in the morning. She has alleged that the applicant asked her if he could start the training at her house at 6.00 am. The suggestion of the applicant was accepted by her.
• According to the complainant, her parents were not at home and the applicant allegedly committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She has alleged that the applicant also threatened to kill her.
• The complainant has also alleged that he threatened to circulate the video which he had recorded on his phone.
• Thereafter, the applicant started blackmailing and asking her to give him money from time to time, failing which he would circulate the said video.
• Accordingly, she gave the applicant cash of Rs. 2,20,000/- and ornaments worth Rs. 2,00,000/- from time to time.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

Counsels on behalf of the applicant:

• The complainant along with some police officers of various police stations have been indulging in extortion activities and the complainant had lodged similar complaints, as against several persons, alleging the same offences. An affidavit along with all the annexures thereto of the brother of the applicant, in support of the same, has been tendered. Also, the complainant in connivance with the police are running a racket and are exploiting persons by extorting huge amounts from them.

Counsel on behalf of the Respondent:

• It was submitted that though the allegations in the complaint lodged with Nerul Police Station and Vashi Police Station were serious, i.e. of gang rape, no FIR was lodged by the said police and that subsequently on a representation made by the complainant that there were some business transactions between the said persons, the FIR was not registered and the complaint was withdrawn by the complainant. Also, the complainant had paid money to the applicant from time to time, pursuant to the threat, that he would circulate the video. The mobile could not be seized, as the applicant had lost his mobile.

Opinion of the Bench

• Considering the aforesaid, it was felt appropriate to direct the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai to look into all the complaints lodged by the complainant with the CBD Belapur, Nerul Police Station and Vashi APMC Police Stations and as well as the present CR, and conduct an inquiry into the same.
• The learned APP was also directed to furnish a copy of the affidavit along with all the annexures, as well as a copy of this order, to the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai. The Police Commissioner, Navi Mumbai shall look into the same, conduct an enquiry and take appropriate action in accordance with the law.

Final Decision

• The applicant was released on cash bail for a period of two weeks.
• The applicant shall thereafter furnish a bond of Rs. 10,000, with one or two sureties in the like amount, within a period of two weeks of his release on cash bail.
• A copy of the enquiry report to be submitted by the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai, within four weeks from that day, in a sealed envelope to the Registry of this Court.

This case summary has been prepared by Mansi Vats, an undergraduate student at UPES School of Law, Dehradun, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in June/July 2020.