Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Harish Tiwari in Extortion and Blackmailing Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court granted bail to Harish Tiwari in a case involving charges of extortion and blackmail. The bail application, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, sought the release of Harish Tiwari from custody in FIR No. 495/2017 registered at the Punjabi Bagh police station in Delhi.

Justice Amit Mahajan, presiding over the case, delivered the judgment on July 14, 2023. The court took into account the allegations made by the complainant, who accused Harish Tiwari and others of extorting large sums of money from him over a span of 12-13 years. The accused allegedly used the pretext of implicating the complainant in false criminal cases and tarnishing his public image.

The court noted the complainant's claim that the accused threatened to release fake and doctored photos and videos, which showed the complainant in compromising positions with women. The complainant alleged that Harish Tiwari, posing as an advocate/legal advisor, initially approached him and coerced him into paying a small amount to protect his reputation. Subsequently, the complainant was introduced to various extortionists who demanded substantial sums of money.

After considering the arguments presented by both the defense and the prosecution, Justice Amit Mahajan observed that Harish Tiwari had already undergone more than the maximum prescribed sentence for the non-bailable offence under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code. As per Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an under-trial cannot be detained for a period longer than the maximum punishment provided for the offence.

Justice Amit Mahajan stated, "The applicant has already undergone the maximum period of imprisonment provided under Section 384 of the IPC, and the offence under Section 389 being bailable, the applicant ought to be released on bail." The court also took note of the fact that the trial was still pending, with a significant number of witnesses yet to be examined.

The court, while addressing objections raised by the prosecution, found no evidence to substantiate the allegations of the applicant's misconduct while on interim bail. It further emphasized that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court does not preclude the filing of a fresh bail application in case the trial extends beyond a stipulated time frame.

Justice Amit Mahajan granted bail to Harish Tiwari and imposed certain conditions, including providing a bail bond of ₹2,00,000/- with two sureties of the same amount. The court directed Harish Tiwari to comply with these conditions, such as appearing before the trial court on each hearing, not leaving the city without informing the authorities, and refraining from contacting any witnesses.

This judgment by the Delhi High Court highlights the importance of considering the maximum punishment for the offence, the entitlement to bail for bailable offences, and the need to assess the circumstances of each case individually.

"The applicant is entitled to be released on bail in terms of provisions of Section 436 read with Section 436A of the Cr.P.C. The applicant has been charged with Section 384 of the IPC, which provides for the maximum punishment of imprisonment up to three years, and the applicant has already undergone more than three years of incarceration. Thus, in relation to Section 384 of the IPC, the applicant is entitled to the benefit of Section 436A of the Cr.P.C."

The judgment referred to the case of Puneet Sharma v. State of Punjab (CR-M 1222-2013) to emphasize that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition in limine does not constitute a binding precedent and does not prevent the filing of a fresh bail application.

This decision by the Delhi High Court highlights the significance of ensuring that the accused is not unduly detained beyond the maximum punishment prescribed for the offence, while also considering the rights and interests of the complainant and the need for a fair trial.

Date of Decision: 14th July, 2023 

HARISH TIWARI vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Latest Legal News