Finding that at this stage, no offence of extortion is attracted under Section 308(1) of the BNS and that the allegations may at best fall under an attempt to commit extortion, the court allowed the bail plea of the accused lawyer.A full bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has placed a judicial officer posted in Chandigarh under suspension in connection with a matter involving the circulation of an allegedly objectionable video clip on social media.According to the order on Tuesday, the suspension has been ordered in exercise of the High Court’s disciplinary jurisdiction under Article 235 of the Constitution, read with Rule 4(b) of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 2016. The full bench, comprising the Chief Justice and other judges, has also directed that the officer’s headquarters during the suspension period will be in Haryana.The development comes after a Chandigarh court granted bail to a lawyer who had been arrested in a case linked to an alleged Rs 1.5-crore extortion attempt involving a purportedly morphed video.As per police records, the case was registered on a complaint by the judicial officer, who alleged that on February 18 he received calls from unknown numbers asking him to check his WhatsApp. Upon opening the application, he reportedly found a video clip containing what he described as manipulated and objectionable images of himself. The clip, he stated, disappeared shortly after being viewed.The complainant further told police that his mobile phone had been lost earlier and expressed suspicion that data from the device may have been misused to create the content. He also indicated apprehension that the act could be linked to his handling of certain sensitive cases.Based on these allegations, the police invoked provisions including Section 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and arrested the lawyer from Haryana on April 11.The accused subsequently moved a bail application, which was allowed by a Judicial Magistrate court on April 20. Granting relief, the court observed that delivery of property is an essential ingredient to establish the offence of extortion.Story continues below this adAfter hearing the plea, the court said: “the complainant was put in fear of injury, but there is no delivery of property, i.e. any amount by the complainant to the accused. The prosecution has not placed on record any document in order to prove that any delivery of property in the form of money took place between the complainant and the accused person at any point in time”.Finding that at this stage, no offence of extortion is attracted under Section 308(1) of the BNS and that the allegations may at best fall under an attempt to commit extortion, the court allowed the bail plea of the accused lawyer.