Wadala: A 43-year-old man with a long history of criminal offences has been arrested by the Wadala TT police for allegedly blackmailing a doctor and demanding Rs 5 lakh by threatening to leak a compromising video.
The accused, identified as Raju Venu Naikar alias Venukam Manikam, had initially visited the doctor’s clinic on March 3, reportedly intending to steal valuables. However, upon allegedly finding the doctor masturbating in his chamber, he filmed the act on his phone and began an extortion campaign.
From Theft to Blackmail
Police sources say Manikam initially demanded Rs 60,000 to suppress the video. The doctor, fearing reputational damage, transferred Rs 1,500 via Google Pay. But the demands escalated. On April 7, Manikam returned, assaulted the doctor, and demanded Rs 5 lakh. Unable to bear the pressure, the doctor filed a police complaint, which led to Manikam’s arrest.
Serial Offender
Investigations revealed that Manikam is a repeat offender with over two dozen criminal cases against him, including Attempted murder, Theft, Extortion, Kidnapping, Rioting and Robbery. He has also served time in prison, police said.
Legal Action
The Wadala TT police have booked Manikam under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Information Technology Act, including:
- Section 308(2) – Attempt to commit culpable homicide
- Section 111 – Criminal intimidation
- Section 127(2) – Extortion
- Section 352 – Assault
- Section 66(e) of the IT Act – Violation of privacy
“The accused was probably attempting a theft when he discovered the doctor in a compromising act and decided to exploit the situation,” a police officer said.
Privacy and Ethics Questions
The case raises serious questions about privacy, digital exploitation, and the vulnerability of individuals—even professionals like doctors—to coercion when caught in compromising circumstances. Police urged the public to report such blackmail attempts promptly and reminded that recording or distributing explicit material without consent is a criminal offence.
The doctor’s identity has been kept confidential due to the sensitive nature of the case.
