case brief ABDUL KAYUM @ KAYYUM VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Court No- 2
Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V.
VISWANATHAN.
Item no- 3
CRM(DB)-161-2024
Case Title: ABDUL KAYUM @ KAYYUM VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL
Case details: The case stems from Gorubathan P.S. Case No. 29 of 2021, registered under
Sections 419 (cheating by personation), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property), 384 (extortion), 306 (abetment of suicide), and 34 (common intention) of the Indian
Penal Code (IPC).
Facts: the petitioner, Abdul Kayum @ Kayyum, is accused of committing offences under
Sections 419, 420, 384, 306, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The allegations against the
petitioner reveal a disturbing misuse of technology and a gross breach of trust. It is alleged that
the petitioner manipulated the victim into sharing intimate photographs through an online
platform, exploiting her vulnerability and trust. Once in possession of these private images, the
petitioner began to extort the victim, likely subjecting her to threats or demands that caused her
immense emotional and psychological distress. Unable to cope with the mounting pressure and
harassment, the victim ultimately resorted to suicide. The chain of events leading to this tragedy
highlights the exploitative nature of the petitioner’s actions, which not only violated the victim’s
dignity but also resulted in the irrevocable loss of her life. These facts, supported by the materials
presented by the prosecution, form the foundation of the case, establishing a prima facie link
between the petitioner’s actions and the victim’s tragic demise.
Statutory Provisions:- The bail application in this case involved Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which empowers the High Court or the Court of Session to grant
bail to a person accused of an offence. This provision is commonly invoked in cases where the
accused is in custody, and the court is required to assess whether the circumstances justify their
release on bail.
The Supreme Court in another case held that granting bail in cases of grave offences, particularly
those with prima facie evidence of involvement, should be approached with caution. In cases
where the accused's actions have severe consequences, like abetment of suicide or loss of life,
the court must prioritise the gravity of the offence over the accused's liberty1.
Court Observed:- The court, while deliberating on the case, made critical observations
regarding the nature of the crime and its impact. It recognised that the offence involved a
significant abuse of trust and a calculated misuse of technology, where the petitioner induced the
victim to share intimate photographs through an online platform. These actions, which began
with manipulation, escalated into extortion, subjecting the victim to immense psychological
torment. The court noted that such acts were not only criminal but also a gross violation of the
victim's dignity and privacy, exploiting her vulnerability for personal gains.
1
State of M.P. v. Kajad (2001) 7 SCC 673
The court further observed the grave consequences of the petitioner’s actions, which placed the
victim under unbearable mental pressure. This relentless harassment left her with no apparent
recourse but to take the drastic step of ending her life. The court acknowledged the irreparable
loss caused by the petitioner’s actions and emphasized that such crimes carry a profound and far-
reaching impact, not only on the immediate victim but also on the societal understanding of
safety, dignity, and privacy in the digital age.
The court reviewed the evidence and found sufficient prima facie materials linking the petitioner
to the crime, including his role in inducing, manipulating, and extorting the victim. These
findings reinforced the court’s view that the petitioner’s involvement in the offense was
significant and established at this stage of the investigation. The observations reflected the
seriousness of the case and underscored the need for stringent measures to address such
violations of trust and humanity.
Held by Court: The court, after carefully considering the nature of the allegations, the evidence
presented, and the prima facie involvement of the petitioner, decided to reject the petitioner’s
application for bail. The court emphasized that the crime was of a grave and serious nature,
involving the exploitation of trust and misuse of digital platforms, which led to the tragic death
of the victim. Given the severity of the offence and its devastating consequences, the court found
it inappropriate to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage of the proceedings.
The court highlighted that granting bail could undermine the administration of justice,
particularly in a case where the petitioner’s actions had such a significant and tragic outcome. It
underscored the need to prioritize justice for the victim and to send a strong message against
such criminal behaviour. The court’s decision also reflected its commitment to ensuring
accountability and its recognition of the broader implications of such crimes, which extend
beyond the immediate parties involved.

case brief ABDUL KAYUM @ KAYYUM VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

case brief ABDUL KAYUM @ KAYYUM VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

case brief ABDUL KAYUM @ KAYYUM VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Court No- 2

You might also like