In a ruling blending scrutiny of police procedure with grave criminal allegations, a Mumbai court has refused anticipatory bail to a 27-year-old student from Himachal Pradesh accused of cheating and extorting over ₹2 crore from a Delhi-based advocate. Additional Sessions Judge S. M. Agarkar at the Dindoshi Sessions Court (Borivali Division) dismissed the plea by Parul Harbinder Rana, underscoring the “serious nature” of accusations including threats to release compromising photographs.
The case, registered under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 pertaining to cheating, criminal intimidation, and extortion, involves an FIR by a complainant describing himself as an advocate and government ambassador.
The Allegations. According to the FIR, the parties met in May 2024 through mutual friends and the relationship escalated, with the applicant allegedly soliciting an initial ₹2.5 lakh in June 2024 citing a family emergency, followed by further payments including ₹2.5 lakh in July 2024 and ₹5 lakh routed through a friend's company. During a joint Bali trip funded by the complainant, a demand of ₹20 lakh was allegedly made. The complainant alleged the applicant later threatened to release intimate photographs stored on a cloud service and file false rape charges unless paid more, with a total of roughly ₹1.5 crore in cash and ₹50 lakh online allegedly extorted, with family members named as co-accused for allegedly making threatening calls.
Defence Arguments. Advocate Rishi Bhuta argued the FIR disclosed no prima facie case, citing a similar complaint in Gurgaon that resulted in a police closure report, and that the applicant had complied with interim bail conditions by surrendering her passport. The defence also raised a procedural challenge, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI requiring notices to be served physically rather than electronically, noting the investigating officer had summoned the applicant via email on Diwali day and given short notice for an out-of-state accused.
Court's Reasoning. Judge Agarkar acknowledged the procedural flaw regarding electronic service and the unreasonableness of the Diwali-day summons. However, the court found the applicant did not dispute the physical relationship or receipt of some money, and that her stated reluctance to appear before police for fear of arrest in a related FIR “prima facie shows that the applicant doesn't want to appear... and it may cause impediment in investigation.” Combining this apparent evasion with her criminal record and the seriousness of the allegations, the court found no grounds for anticipatory bail, rejecting the application and clearing the way for potential arrest, while leaving the applicant free to apply for regular bail upon surrender.
