2018 (6) TMI 1709 - HC - Indian Laws

Bail granted to Ashok, denied for Harish & Subhash due to criminal involvement & risk of tampering.

Ashok Sagar, Harish Tiwari, Subhash Kumar Sharma Versus State (NCT OF DELHI)

Ashok Sagar, Harish Tiwari, Subhash Kumar Sharma Versus State (NCT OF DELHI) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Regular bail applications for the accused in FIR No. 495/2017.2. Allegations of extortion and blackmail over twelve to thirteen years.3. Evidentiary support and credibility of the complainant's allegations.4. Delay in lodging the FIR and enhancement of the extortion amount.5. Specific roles and involvement of each accused.6. Legal principles governing bail applications.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Regular Bail ApplicationsThe applications for regular bail were filed by the accused in FIR No. 495/2017, registered at PS Punjabi Bagh. The accused have been in custody since October 2017, and the charge sheet was filed in December 2017.Issue 2: Allegations of Extortion and BlackmailThe prosecution's case, as set out in the charge sheet, began with a complaint by a 90-year-old man, alleging that the accused had been extorting money from him for over twelve to thirteen years by threatening to publicize morphed photographs. The complainant paid substantial amounts to avoid these threats.Issue 3: Evidentiary Support and CredibilityThe complainant provided various pieces of evidence, including recorded extortion calls, spy camera footage, and transcripts. The charge sheet included statements from the complainant, his drivers, and other witnesses, corroborating the allegations. The accused were caught with extortion money, and their voice samples were sent for forensic analysis.Issue 4: Delay in Lodging FIR and Enhancement of Extortion AmountThe complainant initially reported an extortion amount of Rs. 12 to 14 lakhs, which later increased to Rs. 10 crores in a subsequent complaint. The complainant attributed this discrepancy to his amnesia. The delay in filing the FIR and the unexplained enhancement of the extortion amount were points of contention.Issue 5: Specific Roles and Involvement of Each Accused- Ashok Sagar: Argued that there was no direct payment to him and highlighted the delay in the FIR. The court noted that he had cooperated with the investigation and had no prior criminal record. The court found no substantial reason to deny bail.- Harish Tiwari: Alleged to be the main intermediary between the complainant and the blackmailers. The prosecution highlighted his involvement in other criminal cases and his questionable antecedents. The court found the risk of him influencing the investigation and witnesses too high to grant bail.- Subhash Sharma: Had a history of evading arrest and was involved in other extortion cases. The court noted his propensity to abscond and the ongoing investigation, denying his bail application.Issue 6: Legal Principles Governing Bail ApplicationsThe court emphasized that incarceration during trial is not punitive but to secure the presence of the accused. The principles from various Supreme Court judgments were cited, underscoring that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Factors such as the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, and potential to tamper with evidence were considered.Conclusion:- Ashok Sagar: Granted bail with stringent conditions, including surrendering his passport, reporting to the police station regularly, and not contacting the complainant or witnesses.- Harish Tiwari and Subhash Sharma: Bail applications were rejected due to the risk of them influencing the investigation and their questionable past conduct.The court's decision was guided by the need to balance the accused's right to liberty with the public interest in ensuring a fair trial. The observations made were specific to the bail applications and not indicative of the merits of the charges.