Sextortion Scam Using AI Morphed Nude Video — Legal Remedies Under BNS and IT Act in India

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: If a scammer morphed your face onto a fake nude video using a brief video call and is now extorting money, file an FIR immediately under Section 308 BNS (extortion) read with the Information Technology Act. Deleting chats isn't fatal—preserve whatever you can. WhatsApp and Meta can be compelled to share data. This is often a targeted cybercrime; expert legal handling can get threats neutralised and the fake content removed.

Rohit Mehta, a 28-year-old software engineer from Jaipur, never imagined a 15‑second video call could turn into a nightmare. In early March 2025, an unknown number messaged him on WhatsApp. The sender knew details no stranger should know—Rohit’s ex‑girlfriend Kavya, his brother‑in‑law Ajay Shekhawat, even a close friend he had financially helped. Puzzled but curious, Rohit answered the video call. Only his face was visible. He didn’t undress. He did nothing explicit. Within hours, the scammer sent a morphed nude video, created using AI, and demanded ₹2 lakh. The threat: the video would go to every Instagram and Facebook contact. To prove it, the scammer sent a screenshot of Rohit’s private Instagram connections and actually sent the fake clip to Rohit’s cousin in Nagpur. Panic took over. Rohit deleted the entire chat and blocked the number. But the scammer returned from a second WhatsApp account, taunting, “Now you’ve blocked me, see what happens.” Rohit first approached the local cyber cell in Jaipur. The response was slow. Frustrated and terrified of social humiliation, he visited the office of Advocate Sudhir Rao at the Supreme Court. Here, the strategy changed entirely. Advocate Sudhir Rao’s deep familiarity with cyber extortion and morphed‑content crimes meant the team moved fast—securing directions for preservation of digital evidence, filing a consolidated complaint under the BNS and IT Act, and getting the fake content flagged for takedown. Within ten days, the scammer was identified and the threats stopped.

Key Facts of the Case

• An unknown WhatsApp number contacted the victim and listed personal contacts—ex‑girlfriend, brother‑in‑law, close friend.
• The scammer lured him into a 10–20 second video call where only the victim’s face appeared.
• Using AI morphing, a fake nude video was created and the scammer demanded ₹2 lakh, threatening to circulate it.
• The scammer had access to the victim’s private Instagram follower list and sent the fake video to at least one known person.
• The victim deleted the original chat in panic, then blocked the number.
• The scammer returned with another WhatsApp number, escalating threats.
• The victim first approached a local cyber cell but the investigation stalled; the matter was then taken up by the office of Advocate Sudhir Rao, Supreme Court of India.
• Specialised legal intervention led to swift preservation of digital evidence, identification of the scammer, and removal of the morphed content.

The Direct Legal Answer

What legal action should the victim take in India?

File an FIR at the nearest police station or cyber crime cell, clearly stating offences under Section 308 BNS (extortion), Section 75 BNS (sexual harassment by way of showing pornography against the will of a person), and Sections 66E, 67, 67A of the Information Technology Act for violation of privacy and publishing sexually explicit material. Don’t delay—prompt reporting helps freeze digital trails. A complaint can also be made online via the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal.

Does deleting the original chat affect the case?

It weakens but doesn’t destroy it. WhatsApp metadata, call logs, and cached files can often be recovered through forensic tools. Tell the police everything about the deleted chat; they can seek production orders from the service provider under Section 94 BNSS. Never delete future threats.

Can WhatsApp or Instagram be compelled to preserve evidence or remove the fake content?

Yes. Under Section 94 BNSS read with the IT Act, a court or the investigating officer can direct intermediaries to preserve and produce data. Meta, which owns WhatsApp and Instagram, has grievance officers bound to act on valid legal orders. Advocate Sudhir Rao routinely uses Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act to get obscene morphed material taken down within 72 hours of a court order.

Is this an organised scam or someone known?

The granular detail—knowing the ex‑girlfriend’s identity, brother‑in‑law, private Instagram connections—often points to a person familiar with the victim. A cyber gang could also have scraped social media and used data‑broker leaks, but the pattern here strongly suggests a targeted attack by someone known to the victim. The investigation will clarify that.

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.

Do not pay the blackmailer any amount—it never ends. Block and report the number, but screenshot everything first. Immediately change all social media privacy settings. Cyber extortion cases move quickly only when an advocate who understands the intersection of BNS, BNSS, and the IT Act structures the complaint. A general practitioner may not know the specific data‑preservation orders or takedown protocols that stop the video from spreading.

Applicable Sections of Law

The primary criminal provisions are Section 308 BNS (extortion), which carries up to ten years’ imprisonment, and Section 75(1)(v) BNS for sexual harassment involving pornographic material. Under the Information Technology Act, 2000, Section 66E punishes violation of privacy, Section 67 prohibits publishing obscene material, and Section 67A specifically covers material containing sexually explicit acts. Procedurally, the investigation follows BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) with FIR recording under Section 173 BNSS. Since the scammer used WhatsApp and Instagram, Section 79 of the IT Act imposes obligations on intermediaries to remove unlawful content once notified by the appropriate authority.

Punishment and Penalties

Extortion under Section 308 BNS is a non‑bailable, cognizable offence, punishable with imprisonment of up to ten years and fine. Section 75 BNS for sexual harassment can attract up to three years’ imprisonment and fine. Under the IT Act, Section 67A (sexually explicit material) is a non‑bailable, cognizable offence with punishment up to seven years and fine; Section 66E (privacy violation) is bailable with up to three years or fine. All these are non‑compoundable, meaning the state prosecutes irrespective of a settlement between the parties.

Jurisdiction — Where to File the Case

An FIR can be lodged where the victim resides, where the mobile device was located during the offence, or where the scammer’s message was received. For cyber crimes, the Information Technology Act gives the cyber crime police station additional territorial jurisdiction. If the police station refuses, a complaint can be sent to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS, who may direct investigation. The trial generally takes place before a Magistrate’s court, though if the punishment exceeds seven years, it may be committed to the Sessions Court. Jurisdiction is crucial—if filed incorrectly, the accused can challenge it, wasting precious time.

What if Police Refuse to File FIR?

• Submit a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS. The SP must either investigate or direct a subordinate.
• If still no FIR, file a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, who can order registration and investigation.
• As a last resort, approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS (inherent powers) seeking a direction for registration of FIR.
• Nothing stops you from simultaneously filing a complaint on the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal, creating an official record.

Rights of the Accused

• Right to remain silent and protection against self‑incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
• Right to legal representation—an advocate must be present during any custodial interrogation.
• Right to be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest, excluding travel time.
• Right to receive a copy of the FIR and to know the grounds of arrest without delay.
• If arrest is made under Section 308 BNS (non‑bailable), bail is not automatic; the accused must apply before the court.

Bail Provisions

Offences under Section 308 BNS and Section 67A IT Act are non‑bailable. The accused can seek anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS if apprehension of arrest exists. For regular bail after arrest, apply under Section 480 or 483 BNSS, depending on the stage. Courts typically impose conditions like surrendering passport, not tampering with evidence, and cooperating with investigation. A well‑argued bail application in a morph‑video extortion case often emphasises the lack of prior criminal record and the suggestive nature of the evidence being digital, which may be challenged for authenticity.

Quashing of FIR / Case

The High Court can quash the FIR under its inherent powers in Section 528 BNSS. Grounds include no prima facie offence, abuse of process, or if the parties have legally compounded the offence. But since the offences here are non‑compoundable, quashing is rarely granted unless the allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose any offence. If the investigation reveals that the video was not actually sent or the accused was falsely implicated, quashing becomes a strong strategy. In sextortion cases, if the complainant’s identity details are suspect, the High Court may intervene.

If You Are the Victim

• Do not panic—you are not alone. Thousands face such scams every month.
• Stop all communication with the scammer. Block after taking screenshots.
• Immediately strengthen all social media privacy settings and change passwords.
• Collect every piece of evidence: screenshots of threats, call logs, the morphed video, and the sender’s profile.
• Approach a cyber‑savvy advocate—time is the most critical factor in removing content before it spreads.

Documents You Must Keep Ready

• Aadhaar card or other identity proof.
• Screenshots of the WhatsApp threats, showing the phone numbers and profile pictures.
• Call logs indicating timestamp and duration of the video call.
• The morphed video file itself, if received.
• Copy of any phone‑or‑email records of the content being sent to your contacts.
• Your own written narrative of each event with dates and times.
• Any communication with the scammer after the initial threat (even if it’s just additional threats).

What Evidence Is Required?

• Digital evidence: screenshots of chats, the morphed video, metadata of the WhatsApp message (can be obtained via forensic analysis).
• Network logs: the investigating officer can pull IP address logs from WhatsApp and Instagram.
• Call detail records from your telecom provider showing the inbound video call.
• Witness statements: the cousin or friend who received the fake video can provide a sworn affidavit.
• Cyber forensic report: certified analysis of the morphed video proving it’s manipulated.
• Preservation orders under Section 94 BNSS directed to intermediaries to retain the data.

How the Police Behave in Such Cases

Cyber cells in metros are generally responsive, but smaller towns may lack technical know‑how. Officers often ask whether money was paid—this isn’t to judge, but to track financial trails. Expect initial reluctance if you’ve deleted evidence. A complaint drafted with specific sections makes a difference. Without it, the police may treat it as a trivial harassment case. The involvement of a specialist advocate often ensures the case is registered under the correct non‑bailable provisions, which compels faster investigation.

Timeline of Legal Process

• FIR registration and initial investigation: 1–3 days from complaint. If police refuse, SP complaint adds 3–5 days.
• Preservation orders and takedown: Court can direct intermediaries within 24–72 hours.
• Forensic examination and chargesheet: 60–90 days, depending on complexity.
• Cognizance and framing of charges: 2–4 weeks after chargesheet.
• Trial: Can take 6–12 months if witnesses are cooperative. The digital nature of the evidence often speeds up cross‑examination.
• Appeal: If conviction or acquittal is challenged, another 3–6 months.

How Long Will the Investigation Take?

For a sextortion case with a morphed video, the cyber cell can complete the core investigation—identifying the IP address, device fingerprint, and linking it to the accused—within 30 to 45 days if the evidence is intact. A chargesheet is typically filed within 90 days. If the accused is traced quickly and anticipatory bail is denied, the case moves to trial faster.

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?

Settlement in criminal extortion and IT Act offences is limited because they are non‑compoundable. The state prosecutes even if the victim forgives the accused. However, if the accused is a known person, the victim can still state in court that he has no objection to a lenient view, which may influence the sentence. In civil terms, if a defamation suit is filed separately, a compromise deed can be executed. For removal of content, voluntary takedown by the platform upon complaint can resolve the immediate harm without court intervention, but criminal proceedings usually follow.

Common Mistakes People Make

• Paying the ransom—this marks you as a repeat target and funds further crimes.
• Deleting evidence without preserving backups; even a partially recovered chat strengthens a case.
• Blocking and ignoring the scammer without filing a complaint—the threat doesn’t disappear, it escalates.
• Posting about the incident on social media before legal action; public chatter can alert the scammer to destroy evidence.
• Approaching an advocate without domain-specific experience in cyber law—the interplay of BNS, BNSS, and the IT Act requires precise procedural steps, and a general practitioner may miss critical orders for data preservation and takedown, weakening the case.
• Delaying; every hour counts when a morphed video is being circulated.

FAQs People Normally Have

Will the video actually go viral if I don’t pay?

The scammer’s goal is money, not public exposure. Most do not follow through if you disengage—but when they’ve already sent it to one person, immediate legal action is necessary to stop further dissemination.

Can the police trace a WhatsApp number that is not linked to a real identity?

Yes, through IP‑log analysis and device fingerprinting, the police can often identify the scammer, even if a virtual number was used. It requires the telecom provider’s cooperation and a court order.

Will I have to appear in court repeatedly?

Not necessarily. Once your statement is recorded under Section 183 BNSS, the prosecution proceeds. You may be summoned for evidence, but a good advocate minimises the need for repeated appearances.

Does a morphed video count as “sexually explicit” under the IT Act?

Yes. Section 67A includes material that appears to depict a person engaged in sexually explicit conduct, even if morphed. Courts treat it seriously.

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 Delhi criminal defence lawyer — 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.