Case Title – Akshay @Arjun Vs. State of Karnataka
Case Number – CRL. P. No. 4163/2024
Dated on – 16th May, 2024
Quorum – Justice H. P. Sandesh
FACTS OF THE CASE
In the case of Akshay @Arjun Vs. State of Karnataka, the Appellant, Akshay is accused of blackmailing a woman he met on Instagram. The Appellant allegedly asked the woman for her nude pictures and after she sent them, the Appellant demanded for INR 1,00,000, threatening to share the images with her family and friends if she did not comply. The complaint was instituted by the woman, leading to the registration of Crime No. 593/2024 by the CEN Police Station, Bangalore City. The Appellant sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
ISSUES
Whether the Appellant is entitled to bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the accusations against him?
Whether the accusations and the nature of the offense justify denial of bail to prevent tampering with the evidence or further harassment of the complainant?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for extortion
Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment
Section 67(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 prescribes the Punishment for publishing or transmitting material containing sexually explicit act, etc., in electronic form
Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 prescribes the Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The Appellant, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the accusations were false and that the Appellant did not possess or share any nude pictures of the complainant.
It was emphasized that the Appellant had not shared the pictures of the complainant with her family, friends, or any social media platform.
The Appellant expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation and claimed no intention of fleeing or tampering with evidence.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondent, through their counsel, in the said case contented the seriousness of the accusations, emphasizing that the Appellant had harassed the complainant, blackmailed her, and extorted money.
The Respondent underscored that the action of the Appellant constituted a clear case of extortion, which justified denial of bail.
It was asserted by the Respondent that granting bail could potentially allow the Appellant further harass or intimidate the complainant
COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT
The court in the case of Akshay @Arjun Vs. State of Karnataka, observed that the accusations involved harassment and blackmail through Instagram, where the Appellant allegedly demanded money in exchange for not sharing the nude pictures complainant. The court noted that the offenses under Section 384 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 64(A) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were not triable by the Court of Sessions but by the Magistrate Court, implying a less severe nature of the crime. Taking into consideration, the circumstances and the nature of the accusations, the court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the Appellant with specific conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and prevent any further harassment or tampering with evidence. The petition for anticipatory bail was allowed on the conditions that the Appellant must surrender to the Investigating Officer within ten days and execute a personal bond of INR 2,00,000 with two sureties of the same amount, that the Appellant must not tamper with the investigation or prosecution witness, that the Appellant must cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Investigating Officer as required, that the Appellant must not leave the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer without prior permission until the charge sheet is filed or for three months, whichever is earlier and that the Appellant must mark his attendance once a month, especially on the 30th of every month, between 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM before the Investigating Officer for three months or until the charge sheet is filed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana
Click Here to View Judgment
