The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused anticipatory bail to two women accused in a case involving allegations of a honey trap-based extortion racket. Among other things, Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj observed that the material on record prima facie pointed towards an “organised extortion racket” and also indicated the involvement of a police official.
Dismissing the pre-arrest bail petitions, Justice Bhardwaj held that the nature of the allegations and the apparent scale of the operation warranted a fair and complete investigation, which could be hampered if anticipatory bail were granted.
The FIR was registered on a complaint submitted by an employee in the Ambala Superintendent of Police office. According to the complainant, one of petitioners lodged a false complaint against his brother and thereafter demanded Rs 2.75 lakh. It was alleged that the complaint was withdrawn after the payment was made.
It was also alleged that the petitioner on February 7 this year submitted a complaint against another person and that the matter was settled after Rs 20,000 was allegedly paid. The complainant further alleged that one more complaint dated November 27, 2025, was filed by another woman against his brother and was subsequently withdrawn after Rs 2.55 lakh was allegedly obtained through a co-accused already in custody.
It was added that the accused had formed a cartel that honey-trapped individuals, filed complaints alleging sexual harassment or sexual exploitation against them and later withdrew those complaints upon receiving money.
Appearing before Justice Bhardwaj’s Bench, the petitioners’ counsel contended that the petitioners were victims and not accused. The allegations against the petitioners were a counterblast to a case registered against the complainant’s brother.
Opposing the bail pleas, the counsel for the State and the complainant submitted that the investigation had revealed the involvement of five persons and a woman ASI. The Bench was told that all complaints alleging sexual harassment/exploitation against different persons were submitted at police stations or police chowkis where the ASI was posted.
In a status report dated June 2 filed before the court, Ambala Superintendent of Police submitted that departmental proceedings had already been initiated against the ASI. It was further submitted that she would also be nominated as an accused in the case if her participation in the alleged offences was established.
It was added that call detail records showed that the ASI remained in constant contact with the co-accused. The repeated filing of complaints only at police stations and chowkis where she was posted could not be brushed aside as a mere coincidence at this stage.
Refusing anticipatory bail, Justice Bhardwaj observed: “Taking into consideration the fact that there are multiple instances of honey trap recoveries that are alleged in the FIR in question and the fact that prima facie involvement of a police official is also evident, I am of the opinion that it is a part of an organised extortion racket which is being run by the petitioners herein in collusion with other persons.”
Justice Bhardwaj added the court considering a plea for anticipatory bail was required to be satisfied that the criminal process was invoked with clean intent and that a prima facie case of false implication was made out.
“The nature of allegations, the manner in which the offence has been committed as well as the level at which the entire racket is being organised, which also involves the stakeholders i.e. the police itself, shows that a fair and complete investigation in the matter would not be possible in case the protective shield of anticipatory bail is extended to the petitioners herein,” Justice Bhardwaj added.
