Shivangi Prakash-
Three defendants in the “Honey Trap” case have been granted bail by the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench), which involves allegations of blackmailing a government engineer into paying the accused Rs 3 crores in exchange for the release of some personal recordings.
Although the alleged crime was clearly heinous, the Court said that the victim, Harbhajan Singh, an engineer with the Indore Municipal Corporation, was equally liable.
“The complainant Harbhajan Singh has brazenly misused the privileges of his post and has allowed himself to be the soft target of the unscrupulous persons. He chatted salaciously with the applicants, allowed himself the luxury of their intimate company and when things began going out of his control, he started crying wolf”, the Court observed.
The Court emphasized that people in positions of power must demonstrate a higher level of honesty, morality, and upright character. The Judge went on to say that these attributes must be kept throughout one’s career and life.
The Court opined further, “If you forsake these virtues and allow yourself to be exploited, you are the only one to be blamed for”.
Justice Subodh Abhyankar then granted bail to the accused (bail applicants), despite the fact that the accused had been in custody for nearly 22 months.
Cheating, conspiracy, criminal intimidation, extortion, and other offences were charged against the applicants in the case under Sections 419, 420, 384, 506, 385, 354-C, 370(1)(3), 389(b), 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 66-E, 67, and 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The complainant was suspended, transferred from Indore, and a departmental investigation was launched into his case.
The Court, on the other hand, granted the three applicants bail and ordered them to produce a personal bond of Rs.50,000/ each with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
In its conclusion, the Court stated that both the complainant and the accused were accountable for the claimed acts, though the complainant may be more so.
“No doubt that the applicants have committed an immoral, unethical and demeaning act, unbecoming of the dignity of women but they cannot be solely held responsible for their act as the complainant is also responsible for his act in the same manner, or probably more than the applicants, for what has transpired between them”, the Court said.
Also read: Plea in Madhya Pradesh High Court to declare Lawyers as Frontline Workers