Why did a Delhi court discharge Lawrence Bishnoi in a ₹1 crore extortion case?

A Delhi court has discharged gangster Lawrence Bishnoi and two others in a case related to an alleged ₹1 crore extortion attempt, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish the essential ingredients required to constitute the offence of extortion, according to a report by TOI.

Chief Judicial Magistrate Nupur Gupta, in an order dated February 20, said the allegations did not demonstrate any actual delivery of property a key requirement for the offence of extortion under the law.

“To constitute an offence of extortion, there must be actual delivery of property, money, or valuable security induced by fear. Mere demands or threats do not suffice,” the court observed.


The magistrate noted that the complainant had only alleged receiving phone calls demanding ₹1 crore and threatening his life, but had not stated that any money or property was handed over. “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 said.

Also Read: Lawrence Bishnoi and two other released by Delhi court in extortion call case

The case originated from an FIR registered at the Sunlight Colony police station based on a complaint filed by Raman Deep Singh. He alleged that he received calls from an unknown number on the night of April 23–24, 2023, in which the caller demanded ₹1 crore and threatened to kill him.

Following the complaint, the Delhi Police Crime Branch filed a chargesheet against four accused Lawrence Bishnoi, Sampat Nehra, Ashish Sharma and Haren Sarapdadiya under Sections 386 and 387 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy).

During proceedings, the prosecution argued that sufficient material had been placed on record to establish a prima facie case against the accused.

However, the defence contended that none of the accused were named in the FIR and that no recovery was made from their possession. It also argued that the arrests were based solely on disclosure statements of co-accused.

In its order, the court observed that the relevant legal provisions require a “visible overt act” showing that the accused put a person in fear of death or grievous hurt to obtain property.

“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 further noted that Section 386 IPC requires proof that property was delivered under such fear. Since neither the complainant alleged any delivery of money nor did the chargesheet indicate that any property was handed over, the court held that the offence could not be made out and discharged the accused.

With inputs from TOI