Anticipatory bail denied where serious online-extortion allegations require further investigation.

The complainant alleged that, after meeting the applicant through Jeevansathi.com, he obtained personal information about her, threatened to circulate her private photographs and videos, demanded ₹20,00,000, threatened harm to her parents, and circulated nude images and videos of her on Instagram.

The FIR was registered at Police Station Katara Hills, Bhopal, for offences under Sections 78, 79, 351(3) and 308(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 66A and 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The applicant denied involvement, contending that the complainant had not sent him objectionable material, that his phone and other articles had been seized, and that no sufficient evidence connected him to the alleged acts.

The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether, having regard to the allegations and material available at that stage, the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS.

Whether the seizure of the applicant’s mobile phone and other articles obviated the need for further investigation into his alleged role.

The application was considered under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which provides for the High Court or Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail.

The alleged offences were under Sections 78, 79, 351(3) and 308(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 66A and 66E of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Court’s stated considerations were the nature and gravity of the allegations and the requirements of a fair and effective investigation; it cited no precedent or further legal test.

The Court treated the allegations of threats to circulate private material, the demand for ₹20,00,000, and the alleged circulation of objectionable content on Instagram as serious.

It concluded that the applicant’s role and the circumstances of circulation required proper investigation.

The seizure of his phone and other articles did not, by itself, rule out the need for further investigation.

The applicant’s denials and arguments concerning the absence of direct evidence were matters to be assessed against the material collected during the investigation, and did not justify anticipatory bail at that stage.

The application was rejected.