Gujarat HC Grants Bail to Woman Accused of Extortion Via Threat of False Rape Case, Video Leak [Read Order]

Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has granted regular bail to a woman accused of conspiring to extort money and immovable property from the complainant by threatening to make public a purported sexually explicit video of him and by threatening to falsely implicate him in a rape case.

The Single Bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar was considering a successive application for regular bail filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after filing of the chargesheet, in connection with an FIR registered at Pandesara Police Station, Surat City, for offences punishable under Sections 328, 384, 386, 388, 120(B), 34, 506(2), 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

As per the prosecution case, the applicant and the co-accused had hatched a conspiracy to shoot a nude video clip of the complainant and, under the pretext of implicating him in a rape case, extorted cash as well as movable and immovable properties from him. The Court noted that the complainant and the accused persons were engaged in an embroidery job work business, and that a financial dispute had arisen after co-accused Dhaval and Jivan allegedly owed the complainant Rs. 1.70 Crore in the year 2016-17 before leaving Surat City. It was further alleged that, to avoid the outstanding liability, which had by then escalated to Rs. 2.28 Crore, the accused persons called the complainant to Mumbai, made him consume an intoxicated cold drink, and got him to engage in a sexual act with an unknown woman, which was filmed and photographed. The complainant was thereafter allegedly blackmailed with the threat of making the video and photographs viral, and was made to part with money as well as movable and immovable properties, some of which were transferred in the name of the co-accused. The prosecution's case was that the applicant, described as the main accused who used to administer threats to the complainant, had received Rs. 5.50 lakh into her bank account, which stood frozen.

The applicant's counsel submitted that she was innocent and had been falsely implicated, that nothing remained to be recovered or discovered from her, and that, considering the nature of the offence, she may be enlarged on regular bail subject to suitable conditions. The application was opposed by the learned APP for the State as well as by counsel appearing for the original complainant, who sought dismissal of the application having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence.

The Court reiterated that while considering an application for bail, it is required to take into account the nature of the accusation and severity of punishment, the nature of the material relied upon by the prosecution, the reasonable apprehension of tampering with witnesses or threat to the complainant, the possibility of securing the accused's presence at trial, the character and standing of the accused, and the larger interest of the public or the State.

Examining these factors, the Court observed that the investigation stood completed and the chargesheet had already been filed, that none of the offences alleged were punishable with life imprisonment or death, that the applicant, a woman, had been in custody since April 7, 2026, and that nothing remained to be recovered or discovered from her. The Court further noted that, although the applicant had past antecedents, she was entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and that co-accused persons occupying a similarly situated role had already been enlarged on regular bail, entitling the applicant to consideration on the ground of parity, relying on Rameshbhai Batubhai Dhabi v. State of Gujarat, reported in 2011 (3) GLR 1999. The Court also took note that the commencement and conclusion of trial would take considerable time.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 40, and Gudikanti Narasimhulu and Ors. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 240, the Court held that keeping an accused behind bars for a prolonged period amounts, in effect, to pre-trial conviction, and reaffirmed the settled principle of bail jurisprudence and the guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“bail is a rule and jail is exception”

Without discussing the evidence in detail, and considering the nature of the allegations, the Court held that it was a fit case to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant and allowed the application, ordering her release on regular bail on execution of a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to conditions including that she shall not misuse her liberty, shall not act in a manner injurious to the prosecution or tamper with evidence, shall surrender her passport, if any, within a week, shall not leave the State of Gujarat without prior permission of the Trial Court, shall mark presence before the concerned Police Station once a month for six months, shall furnish her Aadhaar card copy, contact details and address to the Investigating Officer, and shall not indulge in any illegal activity.

The Court clarified that the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the preliminary observations made while enlarging the applicant on bail, and that the concerned Court would be free to modify or relax the bail conditions in accordance with law.

Appearances

Applicant: Mr. Ankit Y. Bachani, Advocate

Respondent-State: Mr. Hardik Mehta, APP

Case Title : Aashaben Mansukhbhai Hirpara (Patel) v. State of Gujarat

[Read Order]