"Honey Trap" scandal: Madhya Pradesh High Court grants bail to three accused, says victim brazenly misused privileges of his post

The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) has granted bail to three accused in a "Honey Trap" scandal, which involves allegations of blackmailing a government engineer to pay the accused Rs 3 crores against the threat of releasing certain intimate videos. .While granting bail, the Court said although the alleged crime was undoubtedly henious, the victim, Harbhajan Singh, who was an engineer with the Indore Municipal Corporation, was equally responsible.."The complainant Harbhajan Singh has brazenly misused the privileges of his post and has allowed himself to be the soft target of the unscrupulous persons. He chatted salaciously with the applicants, allowed himself the luxury of their intimate company and when things began going out of his control, he started crying wolf", the Court observed..The Court highlighted that persons in high office are expected to show a higher standard of integrity, morality and upright character. These qualities have to be maintained throughout one's career and life, the Judge added..“... if you forsake these virtues and allow yourself to be exploited, you are the only one to be blamed for", the Court opined further..Justice Subodh Abhyankar proceeded to grant bail to the accused (bail applicants), considering that the accused have been languishing in jail for about 22 months. ."In such circumstances, taking note of nature of allegations and also ... that the applicants are in jail since 19.09.2019 and have spent around 22 months in incarceration, and the trial has not even begun as the charges are yet to be framed and as many as 57 witnesses have to be examined by the prosecution, in the considered opinion of this court, the applicants are entitled to be released on bail as the final conclusion of the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time on account of COVID-19 as well", the Court said..Case background.The case is rooted in a written complaint filed by Harbhajan Singh (complainant), who is working as Superintending Engineer in the Municipal Corporation, Indore. .In his letter, he stated that he was being blackmailed by the accused. He alleged that the accused had threatened to make certain intimate videos viral, if he does not pay them Rs. 3 crores..It was alleged that two women had initially asked him for some help. After he helped them, the women are stated to have started chatting on the WhatsApp and sent intimate emojis of kisses, their personal photographs. Finally, they were stated to have entered into intimate relationship with him. The complainant added that they took him in their confidence and started asking him to do illegal acts and, thereafter, started blackmailing him.The applicants were charged for cheating, conspiracy, criminal intimidation, extortion and allied offences under Sections 419, 420, 384, 506, 385, 354-C, 370(1)(3), 389(b), 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 66-E, 67 and 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. .The chargesheet was filed against Arti Dayal, Monika Yadav Shweta @ Ranu, Shweta, Barkha and Omprakash, all residents of Bhopal. The bail plea before the Court was moved by three of the accused, Shweta @ Ranu, Shweta Swapnil Jain and Monika Yadav..The complainant was suspended, transferred from Indore and had a had a departmental enquiry initiated against him..The counsel appearing for Shweta Swapnil Jain, advocate Vivek Choudhary submitted that she has been falsely implicated in the case. He argued that apart from the memo prepared under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, there is no evidence available on record to connect her with the alleged offence. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that she had not been named in the FIR and that her name appeared only in the memos of co-accused persons..Advocate Vivek Singh, for Monika Yadav, argued that while there was no progress in the trial, the applicant has been languishing in jail for about 22 months. He added that the applicant herself is a victim, who has been lured by the co-accused in their conspiracy to blackmail the complainant by making false promises. It was also argued that witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and that the case lodged against the applicant was false. .Appearing for Shweta Vijay Jain, advocate Dharmendra Gurjar contended that the applicant was a victim of a media trial. He pointed out that the case is also termed as ‘Honey Trap’, a nomenclature that does not find place in the Indian Penal Code of the Code of Criminal Procedure. .Advocate General Archana Kher vehemently opposed the bail plea and submitted that no case for grant of bail has been made out as the applicants are involved in a heinous offence of blackmailing. .It was argued that the complainant lured by the applicants with their sexual overtures and that once his video clips were recorded by them, he was blackmailed. Looking into the gravity of the offence, no case for grant of bail is made out, the Court was told. .The Court, however, granted bail to the three applicants and directed them to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/ each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court..In parting, the Court commented that both complainant and the accused were responsible for the alleged acts, although adding that the complainant may be more responsible.."No doubt that the applicants have committed an immoral, unethical and demeaning act, unbecoming of the dignity of women but they cannot be solely held responsible for their act as the complainant is also responsible for his act in the same manner, or probably more than the applicants, for what has transpired between them", the Court said. .[Read order]