Existence of long-standing litigation and delay in FIR registration justify grant of regular bail in alleged sextortion.

The applicant, Femida, filed her first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2024, following her arrest on January 2, 2026

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and her husband blackmailed the complainant, Mazhar Noor Kha, by recording an obscene video under duress and demanding Rs. 10,00,000/-

The applicant contended that she was falsely implicated as retaliation for an appeal she filed against a local Corporator in a rape case

Investigation is complete, and the final report has been submitted

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, considering the allegations of sextortion and the defense of false implication

2. Whether the applicant's gender, socio-economic status as a homemaker, and lack of substantial criminal history warrant her release pending trial

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding the grant of bail

It considered the principles governing judicial discretion in bail matters, specifically the gravity of the offence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, and the "merit prima-facie" of the defense regarding delayed FIRs and previous litigation

The court also noted the applicability of Sections 308(2) (Extortion), 351(3) (Criminal Intimidation), and 3(5) (Common Intention) of the BNS, 2023

The court observed that while the State opposed bail due to the gravity of the offense and two criminal antecedents, the applicant had never been convicted of a major crime

The court found prima facie merit in the applicant’s argument that the FIR was delayed and potentially motivated by a desire to pressure her into withdrawing a rape appeal against a local Corporator

It reasoned that since the investigation was complete and the trial would take time, continued incarceration was unnecessary

Furthermore, because the applicant is a 38-year-old homemaker with family ties and a stable socio-economic status, the court determined there was no significant risk of recidivism or flight from justice

The holding is based on the determination that the offense is triable by a JMFC and there are no compelling reasons for continued incarceration

The bail is subject to conditions including regular court attendance, a prohibition on committing similar offenses, and a prohibition on tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses