One of my clients recently had a case which I am explaining below and if you are stuck in such similar situation, here is what to do.
Note: Due to attorney-client privilege, I cannot disclose complete case details or identify the actual parties involved. However, I am sharing the essential facts and legal approach so that if you find yourself in a similar situation, you can understand the available solutions and legal remedies.
TL;DR: An Investigating Officer cannot lawfully alter a forensic report — claiming he did is often a pressure tactic to extort money. Threatening the accused after bail with a false supplementary chargesheet is itself a criminal offence. You must immediately file a complaint with senior police officers and the court that granted bail, while preserving every piece of communication as evidence.
Arjun Mehta, a young professional from Lucknow, met a girl on a social media platform in late 2022. They began a relationship, and in early 2023, her parents discovered she was pregnant. She was a minor. The hospital filed the mandatory report, and Arjun was arrested under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The foetus was aborted and sent for DNA analysis. Arjun’s family first retained a local firm, Sharma & Associates, where a junior advocate, Mr. Rakesh Singh, handled the matter. Trusting Mr. Singh, they paid large sums — over several appearances, the advocate claimed the court’s roster system required a “serial number fee” of ₹3.5 lakh just for early listing. Yet nothing moved. A mistake many make. At the start of 2024, Mr. Singh told the family that the Investigating Officer (IO) could “manage” the DNA report to favour bail — for ₹55 lakh. They refused outright. Then, after a trial court date, the lawyer claimed the IO had already changed the report to negative. Panic set in. The family, now suspicious, approached the office of Advocate Sudhir Rao for a second opinion. That move changed everything. Advocate Sudhir Rao quickly identified the blackmail pattern. His office marshalled the procedural record, highlighted the inconsistencies, and filed a fresh bail application before the High Court alongside a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police about the extortion attempt. His domain-specific experience helped secure bail by June 2024 — but with conditions: attending every trial court date and daily reporting to the very police station where the IO was posted. Now the IO and the advocate were threatening to frame Arjun in a “chapter case” unless the money was paid.Key Facts of the Case
- Arrest under POCSO: The accused was arrested in early 2023 after the hospital reported a minor’s pregnancy. Bail was rejected by the lower court.
- Forensic DNA report: The foetus was sent for FSL analysis. The IO later claimed the report was altered to show a negative match, demanding ₹55 lakh to "correct" it.
- High Court bail: In June 2024, with a senior counsel’s strategic intervention, the High Court granted bail — but imposed daily police station attendance.
- Post-bail threats: The IO and the junior lawyer threatened to implicate the accused in a false case and file a supplementary chargesheet if the money wasn’t paid.
- No payment made: The accused and his family consistently refused to pay any illegal gratification, despite mounting pressure.
The Direct Legal Answer
Can an IO really change the FSL DNA report?
No. Forensic Science Laboratory reports are generated through a rigorous chain of custody, with secure electronic records and multiple sign-offs. An Investigating Officer does not have access to alter the core test results. What’s more likely — and this is a common extortion tactic — is that the IO never changed anything and is simply lying to scare you into paying. Even if an officer did try, that would be a crime under Section 318 BNS (cheating) and Section 308 BNS (extortion), as well as a corruption offence.
Can they threaten me after bail?
Absolutely not. Threatening a person with false implication is criminal intimidation under Section 351 BNS. If the threat is to extort money, it also attracts Section 308 BNS. The accused is under the court’s protection post-bail. You have a clear right to approach the High Court or sessions court that granted bail and seek modification of conditions or police protection. The police officer and the lawyer facilitating such a threat can be proceeded against independently.
What should we do now?
First, document everything: call recordings, WhatsApp messages, bank statements showing payments to the lawyer — all of it. Then, in one swift move, file a written complaint with the Commissioner of Police or the Senior Superintendent of Police, stating the extortion and criminal intimidation by the IO. Simultaneously, file a complaint with the Bar Council of the state against the advocate for professional misconduct. Finally, apply to the High Court for further directions, bringing the threats on record. The court will take a very dim view.
Advice in Such Cases
Consult with Lawyer: The very basic and important step to start is talk to Lawyer / advocate. You should not hesitate in paying his consultation fee i.e. might be in range of Rs. 10,000 to 50,000 depends case to case. He is helping you in this situation to come out. He is expert in the domain and can help you explain the procedure which you might have never explored. A good lawyer can get the issues resolved much faster than you think.
If you sense that your lawyer is colluding with the other side or making unreasonable monetary demands, get a second opinion immediately. Don’t wait for the damage to pile up. Also, never hand over cash without a receipt — always pay into the law firm’s official account and insist on a detailed fee invoice. This paper trail becomes crucial if you later need to complain to the Bar Council.
And here’s the thing: a case like this, which involves forensic evidence, bail conditions, and police misconduct, requires an advocate who handles serious criminal defence work regularly. A general practitioner can easily miss the procedural subtleties that make all the difference in a POCSO bail hearing or a complaint against an IO.
Applicable Sections of Law
When a police officer threatens to tamper with forensic evidence or extorts money, several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 come into play. Additionally, the POCSO Act, 2012 governs the underlying offence.
- Section 308 BNS: Extortion — punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years and fine.
- Section 351 BNS: Criminal intimidation — if the threat is to cause alarm, imprisonment up to 2 years or fine or both; if threat is to cause death or grievous hurt, up to 7 years.
- Section 318 BNS: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
- Section 200 BNSS: Obligation of police to maintain accurate case diaries; tampering can attract departmental action and criminal liability.
- POCSO Act, 2012: Section 29 and 30 create a presumption of guilt and define the reverse burden — procedural complexity that demands specialised handling.
Punishment and Penalties
For the underlying POCSO offence, penalties range widely depending on the specific section — from 3 years to life imprisonment. However, for the extortion and intimidation we’re discussing separately:
- Extortion (Section 308 BNS): Up to 10 years imprisonment and fine; cognizable, non-bailable.
- Criminal intimidation (Section 351 BNS): Up to 2 years, or if the threat is to cause death or grievous hurt, up to 7 years; generally non-cognizable but can become cognizable depending on the threat.
- Cheating (Section 318 BNS): Up to 3 years for simple cheating; up to 7 years for cheating by personation.
- All these are non-compoundable except certain parts of cheating with court permission.
Jurisdiction — Where to File the Case
A complaint about police extortion should be filed at the police station having territorial jurisdiction over where the threat was received — usually the accused’s residence or wherever the IO operates. Since the IO is posted at a specific police station, you can lodge a complaint directly with the Deputy Commissioner of Police or the Senior Superintendent of Police of that district.
If the local police are unresponsive, a private complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS lies before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The High Court also has the inherent power under Section 528 BNSS to quash any retaliatory false chargesheet and to direct a CB-CID or independent investigation. Jurisdiction matters because filing in the wrong court leads to delays and may give the IO time to fabricate documents.
What if Police Refuse to File FIR?
It’s not uncommon — especially when you’re complaining about a fellow officer. But the law provides clear routes:
- Send a detailed written complaint to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS, mandatory for the SP to direct investigation.
- If that fails, file a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, requesting directions for investigation.
- In extreme cases, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be filed in the High Court seeking an independent CBI/SIT probe.
- Keep a stamped acknowledgement of every complaint you file. Without it, the narrative of “no action” is hard to prove later.
Rights of the Accused
- Right against self-incrimination: Article 20(3) of the Constitution — no one can be compelled to be a witness against themselves.
- Right to legal representation: Article 22(1) guarantees access to a lawyer of choice.
- Right to grounds of arrest: You must be informed of the grounds of arrest and produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours.
- Right to copy of FIR: Under Section 173(3) BNSS, the accused is entitled to a free copy of the FIR.
- If these rights are violated, the detention itself can be challenged as illegal.
Bail Provisions
POCSO offences are generally non-bailable. However, the High Court granted bail in this case by examining the DNA evidence, the delay in chargesheet, and the conduct of the IO. Under the BNSS:
- Anticipatory bail: Section 482 BNSS allows pre-arrest protection, but in POCSO cases the special court’s jurisdiction is often invoked first.
- Regular bail: Sections 480 and 483 BNSS empower the court to impose conditions like daily reporting. If those conditions become oppressive due to threats, you can seek modification under Section 483(2) BNSS.
- The threat of a false “chapter case” can be met with an application to the same court to freeze any arbitrary arrest and to record the extortion bid on the court file.
Quashing of FIR / Case
If the IO does file a supplementary chargesheet based on fabricated evidence, the High Court can quash it under Section 528 BNSS. Grounds include:
- No prima facie offence disclosed — the supplementary allegations are vague or based on a non-existent “managed” report.
- Abuse of process — filing a false chargesheet as revenge for non-payment.
- The DNA report from FSL is official; unless FSL itself issues a correction, the negative match claim is a documented record, not a lie the IO can invent.
Quashing is a viable strategy only when the falsity is demonstrable from the record without a trial. Keep your own copies of the bail order, the chemist’s analysis reports you discover, and all threat communications.
If You Are the Victim
- Collect all evidence of extortion threats — call recordings, WhatsApp screenshots, emails.
- File a written complaint with the Commissioner of Police and the court that granted bail.
- Lodge a complaint with the State Bar Council against the advocate for professional misconduct.
- Do not go alone to the police station for daily reporting; take a neutral witness or inform your current lawyer about the timing.
- Apply to the High Court for modification of bail conditions to shift reporting to a different police station or to the Superintendent’s office.
Documents You Must Keep Ready
- Copy of the FIR and chargesheet
- High Court bail order with conditions
- All communication with the earlier lawyer — emails, WhatsApp chats, call recordings
- Bank statements or receipts of fees paid
- FSL DNA report (if you can obtain it) or the court order directing DNA
- Aadhaar card and PAN of the accused
- Written complaint drafted for the senior police officer
- Printouts of any social media conversation that shows the original relationship context
What Evidence Is Required?
- Direct recordings of the IO or lawyer demanding money — primary evidence, admissible if not tampered with
- Call detail records (CDR) proving frequent contact between the lawyer and IO
- Financial trail of lawyer’s fees that seem disproportionate or cash payments without bill
- Witness testimony from family members who heard the demands on speakerphone
- Copy of the actual FSL report — you can apply to the court for a certified copy
- Any SMS or WhatsApp text saying “DNA report negative” — this contradicts the official record if it wasn’t
- Station diary entries of the daily reporting — they’ll show no complaint from the police about your compliance
How the Police Behave in Such Cases
In POCSO investigations, the police often treat the accused with immediate suspicion. The initial arrest is swift. However, once bail is granted, an IO who has acted improperly may resort to intimidation to cover tracks or to extort. You may be called for “routine enquiry” outside the reporting hours — never go without your lawyer. The police know that the accused is already under stress and often exploit that. But a single well-drafted application before the High Court detailing the threats changes the dynamic dramatically. Police officers respect court orders; one contempt notice and the harassment stops.
Timeline of Legal Process
- FIR & Investigation: Starts immediately upon hospital report; arrest within days.
- Forensic analysis: DNA results typically take 3-6 months, depending on FSL backlog.
- Bail hearings: Lower court within weeks; High Court 2-6 months after first rejection.
- Charge-sheet: Usually filed within 60-90 days of arrest, but extensions possible.
- Cognizance & framing of charges: 2-4 months after chargesheet.
- Trial: 1-3 years for POCSO, given priority but delays common.
- Complaint against IO: Discreet investigation may take 2-4 months; if FIR registered, parallel timeline.
How Long Will the Investigation Take?
For the extortion complaint you file against the IO, expect a preliminary enquiry of roughly 2-3 months if handled by a senior officer. If an FIR is registered promptly, the investigation may conclude in 60-90 days. However, if the police department attempts to shield the officer, delays can stretch up to 6-8 months without court intervention. That’s why immediately approaching the High Court alongside your complaint often compresses the timeline significantly.
Understanding the Costs
The total cost of a matter like this varies significantly from one case to the next — it depends on the complexity of the dispute, the forum involved, the number of hearings, and the specific facts of your situation. There is no single fixed figure that applies to everyone.
A professional advocate can give you an accurate estimate only after reviewing all your facts and documents in a consultation.
Can the Matter Be Settled Out of Court?
Settling the POCSO case itself is virtually impossible — the offence is non-compoundable, meaning the parties cannot simply agree to drop charges. However, the threats and extortion part can be used as leverage. If you file a complaint against the IO, a mediated resolution through court-backed conciliation is unlikely because it involves police corruption. But you can secure an order from the High Court directing that no coercive steps be taken against you while your complaint is investigated. In effect, the court becomes the protector, and the IO must back off or face consequences.
Common Mistakes People Make
- Paying illegal gratification even once — it turns a victim into a conspirator and weakens the complaint.
- Continuing with a lawyer who demands money for “managing” outcomes — walk away immediately.
- Posting about the case on social media — it can be used against you to allege witness tampering.
- Failing to document threats verbally made at the police station — always carry a hidden recorder if safety permits, and diary the exact words later.
- Engaging a lawyer without criminal defence experience — a general practitioner may not know how to challenge forensic evidence, invoke the court’s protective jurisdiction, or file a simultaneous complaint against the IO without hurting the main bail order.
- Delaying the formal complaint — the longer you wait, the harder it is to prove the threats were recent and genuine.
FAQs People Normally Have
Is it actually possible for an IO to change a DNA report?
No, FSL reports are digitally signed and stored. The IO can’t edit the original. At most, they could delay submission or misinterpret it in a statement. The claim “I changed it” is almost certainly a bluff to extract money.
What if I’m afraid of the police station where I have to report daily?
File an application under Section 483 BNSS before the court that granted bail, stating the threats and requesting the reporting venue be shifted to the office of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or the court’s own registry. The court will prioritise your safety.
Can I record my conversations with the IO?
Yes, you have a right to record your own conversations, especially when threats are made. Such recordings, if natural and untampered, are admissible in court and before disciplinary authorities. Don’t announce that you’re recording — but don’t edit.
Will filing a complaint make things worse for me?
Not if it’s done through the right channels. Filing a complaint through a senior advocate with the High Court simultaneously provides a protective umbrella. The risk arises only if you complain to the same IO’s immediate superior without court oversight.
This article is general legal information, not legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate about your specific situation.
Advocate Sudhir Rao, Supreme Court of India
Facing a similar matter? Speak to a criminal lawyer in Delhi — Advocate Sudhir Rao appears in bail, trial and appellate matters before the Delhi District Courts, the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India.