New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has asked the Commissioner of Police to call for reports from all police stations in cases of honey trap’ or extortion and issue standing orders for taking action. The high court said though acceptance of allurement is not justified, allurement advanced for extortion of money is also not acceptable.
Justice Suresh Kumar Kait said if the Delhi Police Commissioner feels that such incidents of extortion by alluring a person have happened in the national capital in 2020, he shall issue standing orders to all the concerned police stations that action may be taken as per law, without harassing such person or the alleged accused. The high court’s direction came while granting anticipatory bail to a businessman, accused in a rape case, who claimed that he was trapped and tricked under a well-designed, meticulously planned and thoroughly woven racket of extortionists. I have gone through the photographs and chats which are annexed with the present petition which seems to be the allurement on the part of the complainant (woman) and petitioner (man) got trapped therein, however, without commenting on the merits of the prosecution case, I am of the view that petitioner deserves protection from this court, the judge said.
The high court directed the concerned police officers that in the event of arrest, the man shall be released on bond on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs 25,000. It directed the man, represented through senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, to cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation and that he shall not contact or influence the woman and prosecution witnesses.
I hereby direct the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to personally look into the matter and see whether the complainant herein and the above mentioned (neighbour/ associate) are indulged in any other such type of cases, if so, appropriate action may be taken against the culprits. “In addition to above, the Commissioner shall call reports from all the police stations of such cases as present one and file a report to this effect within four weeks, the judge said.
The high court listed the matter for November 17 for further directions and said that a copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Delhi Police for information and necessary compliance. According to the prosecution, the woman and the man were strangers till August 24, and as she was looking for a job, she got the man’s number and texted him.
The man replied that he was looking for a hot personal assistant’ and a meeting was fixed and the woman sent her location where the man came with a wine, it alleged. It alleged that after drinks, the man raped her and she called her neighbour for help. When she came, she saw the man running away from the woman’s house and the matter was reported to police.
However, Pahwa submitted that as per the WhatsApp chat, the woman had got the man’s number through an online job portal and she asked him whether he was looking for any personal assistant. When the man answered in affirmative, the woman, instead of sending pictures in professional suits or attire, sent her sensuous pictures in bathing suits or bikinis, he contended.
The counsel claimed that the man’s advances were overly welcomed by the complainant and there was not an iota of any demur or protest. The counsel submitted that during the entire chatting, there was no whisper of any job opening or salary structure and work timings, rather she shared her bikini pictures by the pool to allure the man. Once it was done, the complainant called the man at her home and when her demand of Rs 5 lakh was not fulfilled, she registered an entirely fabricated, false and concocted case of rape against him.
He said when the man came to know about lodging of an FIR against him, he gave representation to the police and also filed a complaint against the woman and her associates for extortion of money but no action was taken after which he approached a trial court. The modus operandi, which is prevailing nowadays in such cases can be divided into three parts. First – contact random strangers by different modes viz. WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram and other social networking sites; second if the person responds, means he is interested, then seduce him / her by sending pictures, videos or chatting; third – when the strangers were trapped, call him / her at home and then make videos, level false charges/accusations, intimidate and thereafter demand money, Pahwa argued.
The high court noted the submission of the man’s counsel that the FIR mentioned about the woman’s neighbour, who in reality was her close friend and accomplice in the crime. The prosecutor opposed the anticipatory bail plea saying the man’s presence at the spot was not in dispute and he had admittedly gone to the house of the complainant with wine bottles and seen pictures as he claimed to have sent by her.
He had no business to attend her call and go to a stranger lady at her place after the first conversation, the prosecutor argued, and added that the allegations against the man were serious and his petition deserved to be dismissed.
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor
Comments
0 comment