A Delhi court granted bail to Sonu alias Akshay in an alleged ?1 crore extortion case. Represented by Advocate Ravi Drall, the accused was granted bail after the court considered the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet.
A Delhi court granted bail to Sonu alias Akshay, who was accused in an alleged extortion case involving a demand of 1 crore. The accused was represented by Advocate Ravi Drall.
The case concerned allegations that an extortion demand was made while the accused was lodged in Bhondsi Jail in connection with another case. The court considered the stage of investigation, the filing of the charge sheet and the evidence collected against the applicant while deciding the bail application.
Bail Granted by Delhi Court
Additional Sessions Judge Smita Garg granted bail to Sonu alias Akshay on furnishing a personal bond of 15,000 with one surety of the same amount.
The court noted that the investigation concerning the applicant had been completed and the charge sheet had already been filed. It observed that further detention would not serve a useful purpose in the circumstances of the case.
The accused was represented by Advocate Ravi Drall, who argued for his release on bail.
Allegations in the Extortion Case
According to the prosecution case, Delhi Police registered an FIR on 23 June 2020 following a complaint by Sanjay.
The complainant alleged that a man came to his residence, handed him a slip and asked him to keep money ready. When the complainant became frightened and closed the door, several rounds were allegedly fired outside the house.
After the incident, the complainant's brother allegedly received a WhatsApp voice call from an unknown number demanding 1 crore.
The prosecution alleged that names of Sonu alias Akshay and other accused persons appeared on the slip handed to the complainant.
What Was the Evidence Against the Applicant?
A significant issue considered during the bail proceedings was the nature of the material connecting the applicant with the alleged offence.
The police claimed that the applicant, who was already lodged in Bhondsi Jail in another case, was interrogated on 25 June 2020. His disclosure statement allegedly stated that the incident had been carried out at his instance by co-accused persons and that he had made the call to the complainant's brother.
However, the mobile phone allegedly used for making the call had not been recovered from the applicant.
The investigating officer also stated that the alleged communication was a WhatsApp voice call, rather than a video call, and that a response from WhatsApp concerning the subscriber details had not been received at that stage.
These circumstances formed part of the material considered by the court while deciding the bail application.
Why Was Bail Granted?
The court's decision was influenced by the stage of the investigation and the material available against the applicant.
Investigation Was Complete
The court noted that the investigation concerning the applicant had been completed and the charge sheet had already been filed.
Further Custody Was Not Considered Necessary
Once the investigation was complete, the court considered whether continued detention was necessary. It concluded that further custody would serve no useful purpose at that stage.
Mobile Phone Was Not Recovered
The prosecution had alleged that the applicant made the extortion call, but the mobile phone from which the alleged call was made had not been recovered.
Applicant Was Already in Custody in Another Case
The applicant was already lodged in Bhondsi Jail on the alleged date of the incident. This circumstance was relevant to the defence case and the court's assessment of the allegations.
Bail Conditions Were Imposed
The grant of bail did not end the criminal proceedings. The accused remained subject to the conditions imposed by the court and was required to participate in the proceedings as directed.
What Is Extortion Under Criminal Law?
Extortion involves intentionally putting a person in fear of injury and dishonestly inducing that person to deliver property, valuable security or another legally covered item.
At the time of this case in 2020, Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defined the offence of extortion.
The case also involved allegations relating to threats and the use of firearms. The exact offences and their applicability depend on the allegations and evidence in the particular FIR.
Current Law on Extortion
The IPC was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) from 1 July 2024. Therefore, while discussing a 2020 case, the provisions applicable at the time should be referred to as provisions of the IPC. Current cases must be examined under the BNS where applicable.
Bail in an Extortion Case: What Courts Consider
A bail application in a serious criminal case is decided on its own facts. Courts may consider factors such as:
Nature and seriousness of the allegations
Specific role attributed to the accused
Evidence collected during investigation
Whether custodial interrogation is still required
Whether the charge sheet has been filed
Possibility of influencing witnesses
Possibility of tampering with evidence
Criminal antecedents and other relevant circumstances
Likelihood of the accused appearing during trial
The fact that an offence carries a serious punishment does not by itself eliminate the need for the court to examine whether continued custody is justified.
Advocate Ravi Drall's Role in the Bail Proceedings
Advocate Ravi Drall represented Sonu alias Akshay in the bail proceedings and challenged the need for his continued detention.
The defence relied on the circumstances surrounding the investigation, including the absence of recovery of the alleged mobile phone and the fact that the investigation had been completed.
The court ultimately granted bail subject to the prescribed conditions.
For related criminal defence matters, you can explore Bail and Criminal Defence Services offered by Ravi Drall and Associates.
Key Takeaway from the Case
This case highlights why the specific role attributed to an accused and the stage of investigation can be important in a bail application.
The court considered the completed investigation, filing of the charge sheet, alleged evidence connecting the applicant with the extortion call and the absence of recovery of the alleged mobile phone before granting bail.
However, bail is not an acquittal. Granting bail does not mean that the accused has been found innocent. The final outcome depends on the evidence tested during trial.
For information about related criminal proceedings, see Appeals, Revision and Quashing and Criminal Law Blogs from Ravi Drall and Associates.
Conclusion
The Delhi court's decision to grant bail in this alleged extortion racket case demonstrates the importance of examining the evidence and investigation status against each accused individually.
Where the investigation has been completed, the charge sheet has been filed and continued custodial detention is not considered necessary, the court may consider releasing the accused on bail, subject to appropriate conditions.
Advocate Ravi Drall handles criminal defence matters including regular bail, anticipatory bail, criminal trials, appeals, revisions and quashing proceedings before courts in Delhi.
