Delhi court discharges Lawrence Bishnoi, 2 others in Rs 1 crore extortion case; cites lack of evidence

NEW DELHI: A Delhi court recently discharged gangster Lawrence Bishnoi and two others in a case related to an alleged Rs 1 crore extortion attempt, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients of the offence. Chief judicial magistrate Nupur Gupta, in an order dated Feb 20, observed that the allegations did not demonstrate any actual delivery of property, a key requirement for the offence of extortion. The court emphasised, "To constitute an offence of extortion, there must be actual delivery of property, money, or valuable security induced by fear. Mere demands threats do not suffice." It further observed that the complainant had merely alleged receiving calls demanding Rs 1 crore.

"Nothing has been mentioned about the physical act; rather, it has simply been said he was asked to pay a particular sum of money," the court noted. The case stems from an FIR registered at Sunlight Colony Police Station on a complaint by Raman Deep Singh, who alleged receiving calls from an unknown number on the night of April 23–24, 2023, demanding Rs 1 crore and threatening his life, following which an FIR was registered.

Delhi Police Crime Branch filed a chargesheet against four accused — Lawrence, Sampat Nehra, Ashish Sharma and Haren Sarapdadiya — under sections 386 and 387 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. The prosecution argued that sufficient material had been placed on record to "prima facie" establish the involvement of the accused. However, the defence contended that none of the accused were named in the FIR and no recovery was made from their possession, adding that the arrests were based solely on disclosure statements of co-accused. Magistrate Gupta observed that the provision requires a "visible overt act" showing the accused put a person in fear of death or grievous hurt. "In the absence of any apparent overt act leading towards the act of extortion, it cannot be said that an offence committed was extortion by threat," the court said. The court also noted that Section 386 IPC requires proof that property was delivered under such fear. However, neither the complainant alleged any delivery nor did the chargesheet indicate that any property was handed over. In its absence, the court held the offence could not be made out and discharged all the accused.