Sextortion a serious social issue, observes Delhi High Court [Read Judgment]

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has made a strong observation regarding the issue of "sextortion," and described it as a serious social problem and a severe breach of privacy.

This observation was made by the Delhi HC while rejecting the anticipatory bail plea of three individuals accused of sextortion.

“Sextortion represents a profound violation of privacy and is a significant social menace. It involves the exploitation of obtained intimate images and videos to extort money or favors from victims, often leading to severe psychological trauma. This cyber-enabled crime not only undermines individual dignity but also poses serious challenges to law enforcement due to its clandestine and cross-jurisdictional nature.” The Court held while highlighting the significant psychological trauma experienced by victims in these instances.

Further, the court while declining Anticipatory bail to the accused persons also held that the scale of operation of these types of crime, seems to be humongous, and dismantling such a complex modus operandi requires thorough investigation and custodial interrogation.

The court also held that if the accused are released, they may continue to commit similar offences as a total number of 10 complaints have been found, in which innocent people have been cheated by the same accused persons through same modus operandi thereby indicating that the present case is not a one of instance.

FACTS

Dewan Singh was forced into giving away Rs 16 lakh to individuals pretending to be police officials and representatives from various social media platforms. This occurred after he received a WhatsApp video call from an unknown woman who recorded their "private" conversation.

He was forced to give money under the pretense of having the “Private” video taken down from social media platforms. Additionally, he was also threatened with being implicated in the murder case of the lady in the video and on the pretext of settling the matter with her family.

ARGUMENTS

The applicants argued that they had been wrongly implicated based on the disclosure statements made by the co-accused persons. Further, they also argue that neither there was any evidence to incriminate them nor they have been beneficiaries of the proceeds of the crime.

On the other hand, the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the accusations against the individuals were of a serious nature. Further, he argued that the applicants have not only failed to cooperate in the investigation but also have been active members of an organized crime syndicate, specifically engaged in the illegal activity of sextortion.

DECISION

The court after hearing both the parties and perusal of the record held that there is a justified concern regarding the applicants’ potential influence over the evidence and the possibility of committing similar offences if not detained.

Further, the court also held that the accused persons have not been cooperative with the investigation, despite being given temporary protection by the court.

In conclusion, the court held that granting anticipatory bail to the individual would hinder the ongoing investigation and that bail should not be granted routinely, allowing the individual to use it as a means of protection. 
However, the court also clarified that observations made in the present order should not influence the outcome of the Trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

[Read Judgment]