Grant of bail for extortion through digital blackmailing where charge-sheet is filed and trial is pending.

The applicant sought regular bail following his arrest for allegedly attempting to extort ₹2,50,000 from a Patwari (complainant).

The prosecution alleged that the applicant and a co-accused sent a compromising video via WhatsApp to the complainant, threatening to make it viral unless a ransom was paid.

Following instructions sent via a VPN number, the complainant placed money near a Mahua tree, where the applicant was apprehended by police upon attempting to collect it.

The applicant contended that he was falsely implicated, noting the absence of the alleged video, no recovery of electronic devices, and no technical evidence linking him to the communication.

The applicant has been in custody since December 22, 2025, and has one prior criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) considering the nature of the evidence and the duration of his incarceration.

The court applied Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which governs the power of the High Court to grant bail.

The substantive charges were brought under Section 308(2) (extortion) and Section 3(5) (common intention) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.

The court also applied standard judicial principles regarding bail, emphasizing the consideration of the period of custody, the filing of the charge-sheet, and the likelihood of a protracted trial.

The court evaluated the gravity of the allegations—blackmailing a public servant for extortion—against the procedural status of the case.

It observed that the applicant had been in jail for approximately three months (since December 22, 2025) and that the investigation had progressed to the stage where a charge-sheet had already been filed before the competent court.

The court noted the applicant's single criminal antecedent under the NDPS Act from 2021 but determined it did not justify continued pretrial detention given the current circumstances.

Furthermore, the court considered that the trial was unlikely to conclude in a short timeframe, balancing the applicant's right to liberty against the prosecution's objections.

The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a personal bond with two sureties, subject to specific conditions: prohibited from seeking unnecessary adjournments, required attendance on all trial dates (specifically for framing of charges and recording of statements under Section 351 BNSS), and a warning that default would constitute an abuse of liberty under Section 209 or 269 of the BNS.