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. 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.
Court Highlights Organized Racket
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 court emphasized that the criminal process must be invoked with clean intent, and a prima facie case of false implication was not made out.
Details of the Allegations
The FIR was registered on a complaint by an employee of the Ambala Superintendent of Police office. According to the complainant, one of the petitioners lodged a false complaint against his brother and demanded Rs 2.75 lakh. The complaint was withdrawn after the payment was made. Additionally, on February 7 this year, the petitioner submitted a complaint against another person, which was settled after Rs 20,000 was allegedly paid. A third complaint dated November 27, 2025, was filed by another woman against the complainant’s brother and was withdrawn after Rs 2.55 lakh was allegedly obtained through a co-accused already in custody.
Cartel and Police Involvement
The complainant further alleged that the accused formed a cartel that honey-trapped individuals, filed complaints alleging sexual harassment or exploitation, and later withdrew them upon receiving money. The investigation revealed the involvement of five persons and a woman Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI). All complaints were submitted at police stations or chowkis where the ASI was posted. In a status report dated June 2, the Ambala Superintendent of Police confirmed that departmental proceedings had been initiated against the ASI, and she would be nominated as an accused if her participation was established.
Court’s Observations
Justice Bhardwaj noted: “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.” He added that the nature of allegations, the manner of commission, and the level of organization, involving police stakeholders, meant a fair investigation would not be possible if anticipatory bail were granted.
