The Gujarat High Court has rejected the bail plea of a man accused of orchestrating a honey trap and extorting Rs 10 lakh from a 35-year-old victim who later died by suicide, observing that rising instances of coercion and exploitation pose serious threats to society.
In an order passed on September 23, Justice Hasmukh D Suthar dismissed the application after finding evidence of the accused’s direct participation and coercive conduct against an ordinary citizen. The court cited the gravity of the allegations and the potential risk of evidence tampering while directing the trial court to expedite the case.
Judicial Concerns Over Rising Exploitation
Reflecting on the wider societal ramifications, the bench noted that an increasing culture of violence, extortion, and honey traps causes profound concern when it leads to fatalities, eroding core human values of tolerance and mutual coexistence.
Addressing the defence’s contention that the investigation had concluded, Justice Suthar affirmed that the mere submission of a chargesheet does not automatically establish grounds for securing bail.
Allegations Of Coercion, Filming, And Extortion
The case originates from a complaint lodged by the deceased man’s brother, who stated that the accused orchestrated a trap by compelling the 35-year-old to consume liquor, filmed him in a compromising situation with a woman, and subsequently used the footage to extract Rs 10 lakh.
Investigators revealed that the victim faced sustained physical and mental harassment over a span of two to three months, alongside pressure to drop or settle police complaints, before dying by suicide.
Assistant Public Prosecutor Shruti Pathak informed the court that the deceased had named the accused in both a suicide note and a recorded dying declaration. Although the initial police complaint following the death omitted the honey-trap aspect, the victim’s dying declaration explicitly detailed the applicant’s role, and video transcripts corroborated allegations of prolonged torture.
The prosecution further stated that five video clips retrieved from a mobile phone were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for technical evaluation, with the forensic analysis report currently awaited.
Claims Of Police Inaction And The Defence Position
The complainant asserted that multiple complaints regarding persistent harassment had been submitted earlier, but authorities failed to initiate effective action because one of the co-accused was serving as a police constable and was the brother of the applicant. The state pointed out that this co-accused is a police constable and another co-accused has already been identified and taken into custody, heightening the risk of interference with evidence if the applicant were freed.
Arguing for the applicant, defence counsel Laxmansinh M Zala maintained that his client was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case. The defence highlighted the delay in filing the complaint, noted the absence of any prior honey-trap allegations against the accused, and argued that the completion of the probe and filing of the chargesheet warranted the grant of bail.
Finding prima facie evidence of highhandedness and active involvement, the high court rejected these arguments and denied relief.
