A court in Chandigarh has granted bail to a lawyer accused of blackmailing a judge over an objectionable video..In the order passed on April 20, Judicial Magistrate First Class Ajay opined that prima facie the offence of extortion under Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) was not made out against the accused who is a practicing lawyer in Haryana’s Rohtak.“At this stage, applicant in custody since 11.04.2025 and presentation of challan and trial is likely to take time. Nothing is to be recovered from the applicant. As such, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the applicant/accused behind the bars for further period. As such, the bail application is allowed and the applicant/accused is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount,” the Court ordered. .The case was registered on March 4 following a complaint made by an Additional Sessions Judge. He alleged that on February 18, he received a WhatsApp message containing a video clip with an objectionable, morphed image. He further stated that he subsequently received messages and voice calls demanding ₹1.5 crore, along with a threat that if he failed to pay, the video clip containing objectionable morphed content would be circulated publicly..The counsel representing the accused-lawyer submitted that he had no connection with the case and had only represented father of a co-accused in an unrelated matter. That co-accused had disclosed his name only with a malafide intention to implicate him in the extortion case, the Court was told.“The alleged objectionable video pertains to District Bhiwani and is stated to have already been circulated nearly two years prior to the present complaint. Proceedings, including complaint and departmental inquiry are already pending in respect of the same. Hence, the present FIR suffers from lack of territorial jurisdiction and appears to be a misuse of process by re-agitating an already existing issue before the different forum,” the counsel said. .However, the prosecution submitted that a phone and SIM card recovered from the accused-lawyer were found to have been used in the commission of the offence. It also said that the video in question was found in another phone recovered from him. The police added that the accused had played an active role in the extortion demand..After considering the arguments, the Court noted that as per Section 308 of BNS, the offence of extortion is made out only when there is delivery of the demanded property or amount by the victim.It said that the prosecution in the present case had not placed on record any document to prove that any delivery of property in the form of money took place between the complainant and accused person at any point of time. “Accordingly, at this stage, no offence of extortion is attracted as defined under Section 308(1) of BNS. Though, complainant was put in fear of injury as per the prosecution story but this offence has been separately defined under Section 308(3) of BNS which stays that ‘Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to two years, or with fine, or with both’,” the Court said.Thus, it opined that prima facie offence under Section 308(2) of BNS was not made out and granted bail to the accused. However, the Court directed the accused to give his voice sample for investigation as per earlier orders..Advocate Pardhuman Garg represented the accused.Additional Public Prosecutor Krishan Pal represented Cyber Cell, Chandigarh Police.
