The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently refused to grant bail to a woman accused of habitually filing cases of sexual offences against different men with a view to extorting money from them.
Justice Ashok Kumar Verma was hearing the woman’s plea seeking bail in relation to offences of criminal conspiracy, threatening to give false evidence and extortion.
“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the alleged offences and the fact that the petitioner is a habitual of filing cases against different persons but without commenting upon the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail,” the Court held.
The First Information Report (FIR) alleged that the petitioner harassed the complainant’s son and threatened him with a false rape case while stating that she had sent many boys to jail.
The petitioner was also accused of reaching the neighbourhood of the complainant, asking for money and creating a scene.
In fact, as per the FIR, the petitioner, her mother and a middle-aged man also came to the complainant’s house and asked for the settlement amount while threatening that they would file a rape case against the complainant's son.
Before the High Court, the petitioner sought bail while arguing that she had been falsely implicated. It was her stand that the complainant’s son took undue advantage of their friendship and raped her on the pretext of marriage.
Counsel for the State opposed the petition for bail and informed the Court that the petitioner was habitually filing complaints against young boys and their family members with a motive to blackmail them.
It was pointed out to the Court that the petitioner had filed as many as nine cases against different men, three of which were found to be false.
The Court, on considering the State’s affidavit, noted,
"The petitioner is running racket for extortion of money from the persons against whom the allegations have been made by her."
Advocate Syed Imtiyaz Ali appeared for the petitioner while Assistant Advocate General Gaurav Bansal represented the State and Advocate Vipul Aggarwal appeared for the complainant.
[Read Order]