Repeated Bail Applications Without New Grounds Are an Abuse of Process: P&H High Court Denies Bail to Accused in ₹1.34 Crore Sextortion and Cyber Fraud Case

The Punjab & Haryana High Court, in a significant ruling, denied bail to Jaibuna @ Jai Bhuna, accused in a ₹1.34 crore sextortion and cyber fraud case. The Court rejected her third bail petition, observing that there was no substantial change in circumstances since the previous denials and that granting bail would impede the investigation and harm public interest.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil, presiding over the matter, held that organized sextortion crimes are a growing digital threat and require strict judicial scrutiny to prevent further victimization. The Court further noted that the petitioner’s involvement in laundering extorted money established a prima facie case against her.

Sextortion and Cyber Fraud – ₹1.34 Crore Extorted from a 73-Year-Old Doctor

The case involves a 73-year-old doctor, Dr. Satabhushan Jain, who was allegedly trapped in a sextortion scam orchestrated by a well-organized cyber syndicate. The doctor was lured into a WhatsApp video call where the accused woman engaged in explicit activities while secretly recording the conversation.

Following this, he received blackmail calls from individuals posing as police officers and CBI officials, who falsely claimed that the woman had committed suicide and that her family was demanding money to avoid a criminal case. Out of fear, the doctor transferred a total of ₹1,34,65,500 across multiple bank accounts.

The fraud was later reported on the National Cyber Crime Portal, leading to the arrest of multiple accused, including Salim (the petitioner’s husband), Shahid, Mursaleem, and two juveniles. Investigation revealed that the extorted money was deposited into various accounts, and ₹6 lakhs were recovered from the petitioner’s residence in Jaipur.

Bail Rejected – No Substantial Change in Circumstances

The petitioner had filed three bail petitions, each of which had been dismissed. The Court noted: "Once two bail applications have been rejected on merits, there is no question of considering a similar prayer unless there is a substantial change in circumstances. The petitioner has failed to highlight any drastic change that necessitates her release on bail."

The Court reaffirmed that repeated bail applications without new grounds amount to an abuse of the judicial process.

Cyber Crime and Sextortion – A Growing Digital Menace

The High Court, while rejecting the bail plea, expressed grave concern over the rise in sextortion cases, particularly those involving organized cyber syndicates operating across states. The Court stated:

"Such acts are currently the highest reported form of image-based sexual abuse, a form of online blackmail that has been growing in prevalence since 2021. Sextortion cases often lead victims to severe mental trauma, with some even taking their own lives. Courts must adopt a strict approach to prevent misuse of digital platforms for blackmail and cyber fraud."

The judgment emphasized that minors are increasingly being used by such syndicates, as juvenile offenders receive lighter punishment under the law.

Parity with Juveniles Not Applicable
The petitioner sought parity with two juvenile co-accused, who had been granted bail under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. However, the Court dismissed this argument, stating: "The Juvenile Justice Act applies differently to minors. The petitioner, being an adult, cannot claim parity with juveniles, as their legal treatment and judicial considerations differ fundamentally."

Investigation Reveals Prima Facie Guilt – Digital and Financial Evidence Against the Petitioner

The Court relied on digital records, financial transactions, and communication logs, which indicated that the petitioner was actively involved in laundering the extorted money.

The Call Detail Records (CDRs) placed the accused at Deeg, Kaama Bharatpur, and Jaipur at the time of the crime. The petitioner and her husband, Salim, allegedly deposited the extortion money into multiple bank accounts and distributed cash to co-accused who committed the cyber fraud.

The Court noted: "There is no apparent reason why co-accused persons would falsely implicate the petitioner. The investigation does not suggest false implication, and the evidence establishes her direct involvement in laundering the extorted money."

Impact on Investigation – Risk of Tampering with Evidence

The Court rejected bail, citing the risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. The Court observed: "Given the organized nature of the crime, releasing the petitioner would seriously jeopardize the investigation. Sextortion cases involve complex digital trails, and accused persons, if released, could obstruct justice by tampering with evidence or intimidating victims and witnesses."

The High Court dismissed the third bail application, ruling: "Evidently, this is not a case for exercising discretion under Section 483 BNSS in favor of granting regular bail. The petitioner is accused of participating in a highly organized sextortion racket. Granting bail would undermine the ongoing investigation and embolden such cybercriminals."

The Court further clarified that its observations would not prejudice the trial, stating: "These observations shall have no bearing on the trial court’s adjudication, which shall proceed based on merits."

Date of Judgment: January 21, 2025