The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that the mere making of threatening calls, without any actual extortion or recovery of money, does not justify denial of bail under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. This decision reinforces the principle that bail must be granted where the accused has not caused tangible harm and the prosecution lacks evidence of completed criminal intent.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Sourabh, a 23-year-old individual with no prior criminal record, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 436/2025 registered at Police Station Motinagar, Sagar. The case alleges that he created multiple fake digital identities and used them to make threatening and ransom calls to victims. However, the police have not recovered any money, nor has any victim been financially harmed. The charges include Sections 319, 308(1)(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66(c) of the Information Technology Act.
Procedural History
- 13 May 2025: Applicant taken into custody following registration of FIR.
- September 2025: First bail application withdrawn voluntarily before the same court.
- February 2026: Third bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought regular bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration without trial, lack of actual harm caused, and absence of prior criminal antecedents. He argued that the allegations, while serious, were unproven and did not justify continued detention.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether bail can be denied under Section 483 BNSS solely on the basis of alleged threatening communications under Section 66(c) IT Act and Section 319 BNS, where no actual extortion or financial loss has occurred.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant’s counsel contended that the absence of any recovered amount or successful extortion negates the essential ingredient of criminal intent under Section 319 BNS (causing hurt to extort property). Reliance was placed on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar to argue that gravity of offence alone cannot override the presumption of innocence. The applicant’s youth, clean record, and prolonged custody without trial were emphasized as factors favoring bail.
For the Respondent/State
The State opposed bail, asserting that the applicant’s repeated use of fake IDs to threaten victims demonstrated a pattern of criminal behavior. It argued that the nature of cyber threats under Section 66(c) IT Act poses a serious risk to public order and that granting bail might enable repetition of the offense.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the factual matrix and found no evidence that the applicant succeeded in extorting any money or causing actual financial harm. The prosecution had not recovered any incriminating material from the applicant’s possession. The Court emphasized that Section 319 BNS requires proof of intent to extort coupled with actual or attempted acquisition of property - neither of which was established. The Court distinguished between threat and execution, noting that mere threatening communication does not equate to completed offence.
"Looking to the factual aspects of the case coupled with the facts that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the applicant and he did not succeed in extorting any money from the victim, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail."
The Court further noted that the applicant had been in custody for over nine months with no trial in sight, and that the State had not demonstrated a risk of tampering with evidence or flight. The Court declined to prejudge the merits of the case but held that the balance of convenience and the right to liberty under Article 21 favored release.
The Verdict
The applicant won. The Court held that bail must be granted where no actual harm or recovery has occurred, even in cases involving cyber threats. The applicant was released on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one solvent surety, subject to conditions including non-repetition of the offense and compliance with Section 480(3) BNSS.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Actual Harm Is Required for Denial of Bail in Extortion-Related Cyber Cases
- Practitioners must now argue that Section 319 BNS requires proof of attempted or actual acquisition of property, not just threats.
- Courts cannot deny bail merely because a suspect used fake IDs or made threatening calls if no money was taken.
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate tangible harm or a real risk of recurrence.
Conditions on Bail Must Be Specific and Statutorily Grounded
- The Court’s direction to comply with Section 480(3) BNSS sets a precedent for conditioning bail on statutory compliance, not arbitrary restrictions.
- Conditions like "not repeating the offence" are valid only if tied to specific statutory provisions and are enforceable.
- Practitioners should draft bail conditions with reference to BNSS sections to ensure enforceability.
Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Weighs Heavily in Bail Decisions
- Nine months of custody without trial was a decisive factor, reinforcing that delay in trial is a legitimate ground for bail.
- Courts are increasingly sensitive to the impact of prolonged incarceration on young, first-time accused persons.
- This judgment supports arguments for bail in other cyber-crime cases where investigation is stalled and trial is delayed.
