Threat to cause 'trouble' is not 'extortion'; hence no MCOCA case attracted says HC; grants bail to 5

MUMBAI: In an order Friday the Bombay high court granted bail to a group of individuals who were charged under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) for alleged extortion. Justice Manish Pitale, sitting singly, stated that the threat in question, which asked "him to desist from doing certain acts, failing which the informant would face 'trouble'," did not qualify as a threat to cause death, grievous hurt, or an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment.Consequently, the invocation of MCOCA was found to be prima facie unsustainable.
The bail applications were filed by Mohammed Kapadia, Vipul Gajipura, and three others in connection with a 2022 FIR lodged by the Anti-Extortion Cell, Mumbai. The accused had been behind bars since 2022. Senior Counsel Aabad Ponda, along with advocates Rajendra Rathod, Mithilesh Mishra, and Husen Shaikh, for the accused argued that MCOCA was wrongly invoked as the requirements for a third FIR and "continued unlawful activity" in Maharashtra were not met. Ponda also contended that the offences under Sections 387 (extortion) and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) of the IPC were not made out, even if the informant's statement leading to the FIR registration was accepted as is.
Public Prosecutor Hiten Venegaonkar opposed the bail plea, stating that the complaint's tenor disclosed that the businessman had previously received a threat to extort ₹50 lakh if he intended to carry on business in Gujarat. The complainant also received a call in Mumbai from an international mobile number, asking him to desist from reporting the threats given in Gujarat and to abide by the demands made.
However, the High Court accepted Ponda's submissions and granted bail, considering that no prima facie case of extortion was made out in Mumbai, and thus, MCOCA was not attracted. The court also factored in the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. Justice Pitale held that even if the alleged threat received by the informant in Mumbai was accepted at face value, the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 387 of the IPC could not prima facie be said to be made out.
Advocate Nitin Patil for the complainant adopted Venegaokar’s submissions.
Justice Pitale held the present case, the threat allegedly received by the informant at Mumbai, indicates that he was asked not to contact two of the accused persons, not to contact them by phone and not to make phone calls here and there, failing which the informant would face “trouble”. The HC said though the State stressed that the informant was also directed to do as demanded by the persons from Surat who are the accused and “none else” yet “essential ingredients” of extortion are not made out.