In CRM-M-33585-2022 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- P&H HC denies bail to woman running racket for extortion of money by falsely implicating young boys in 9 fake rape cases
Justice Ashok Kumar Verma [07-12-2022]

Read Order: Xxx v. State of Haryana 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, December 16, 2022: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has denied the grant of regular bail to a woman who has filed as many as nine false rape cases against different young boys for the purpose of extorting money. 

While denying the bail, the Bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Verma opined, "The petitioner is running a racket for extortion of money from the persons against whom the allegations have been made by her."

The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the grant of regular bail in a case FIR registered under Sections 120-B, 195-A, 34, 384, 389 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

The above-said FIR was registered upon the complaint made by Archana Verma alleging that the petitioner who was friends with her son, took him to the hills and indulged in obscene activities which was objected to by her son. 

This angered the petitioner who threatened the complainant's son with filing of false rape case against him. She also disclosed that she had done this (filed false rape cases) against multiple boys. Following this, the petitioner approached the complainant and asked for money in order to arrive at a settlement. In spite of being already married to someone else, the petitioner was pressuring the complainant's son to marry her. 

Later, she along with mother and a middle aged man also came to the house of the complainant and asked for the settlement amount while threatening that they would file a case of rape.

It was the case of the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case. The Counsel further argued that  the petitioner and the complainant's son were close friends and that the latter took undue advantage of this friendship and had unnatural forcefully sex with her, on the pretext of false promise of marriage.

The present FIR was nothing but just a counter-blast to the petitioner's complaint filed against the complainant's son with Women's Police Station West Gurugram, the Counsel contended while also submitting that in the FIR, no amount of money was quoted either by the petitioner or by anyone from her side and the transaction of not a single penny was done.

As such, the Counsel added that Section 384 of the IPC was deleted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, chargesheet was presented and charges were framed. No prosecution witnesses were examined and the petitioner was in custody since January 27, 2022, the Counsel submitted while urging for the grant of bail to the petitioner. 

The State Counsel submitted that the petitioner was habitual of filing complaints against young boys and their family members. As many as 09 FIRs were registered at the instance of the petitioner between September 2020 and November 2021, the Counsel submitted while adding that she had a pattern to falsely implicate boys and their family members in offences of rape, outraging the modesty with a motive to blackmail them. 

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that the petitioner filed as many as 9 FIRs against different persons and out of these 9 cases, proceedings under Section 182 of the IPC were initiated in 3 cases against the petitioner as the allegations of these FIRs were found to be false. 

The Bench further added that the petitioner was also involved in another FIR registered under Sections 384, 389, 409, 195, 211, 506, 120-B of the IPC. 

In light of the above, the Bench observed that the petitioner was running a racket for extortion of money from the persons against whom the allegations were made by her.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the alleged offences and the fact that the petitioner was habitual of filing cases against different persons but without commenting upon the merits of the case, the Court was of the view that the petitioner did not deserve the concession of regular bail. 

The petition was thus dismissed.