P&H High Court Suggests National Database To Track Habitual Complainants, Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Filing Multiple False Rape Cases
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a woman accused of conniving with a co-accused to get multiple false rape cases registered across Punjab and Delhi with the object of extorting money from the alleged victims, while separately suggesting that a national-level database be developed to make the antecedents of habitual complainants available to investigating...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted regular bail to a woman accused of conniving with a co-accused to get multiple false rape cases registered across Punjab and Delhi with the object of extorting money from the alleged victims, while separately suggesting that a national-level database be developed to make the antecedents of habitual complainants available to investigating agencies across jurisdictions. [2026 LL (PH) 324]
Justice Sanjay Vashisth said "With the advancement of technology, means of communication have evolved substantially and have facilitated the sharing of information across jurisdictions. In cases involving allegations of repeated or habitually filing of complaints, particularly where the antecedents of the complainant or the accused may have relevance, there is a need to consider whether a suitable national-level portal or database can be developed wherein such antecedents, subject to appropriate safeguards and verification, may be made available to the concerned investigating agencies."
The Court suggested that such a mechanism could help investigating agencies across the country access prior information about persons involved in repeated proceedings, and place such information before courts at the appropriate stage where legally relevant — while ensuring that individual rights and privacy are duly protected.
The FIR was registered in August 2023 under a cluster of IPC/BNS provisions including Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 384/388/389 (extortion), 420 (cheating), and 465/467/468/471 (forgery-related offences), following an investigation by the AIG, Crime Zone, Amritsar.
The investigation revealed that co-accused Veronika @ Divyanshi Kanwar, allegedly in connivance with the petitioner, had got multiple rape cases registered in Punjab and Delhi based on false allegations, with the object of extorting money from the accused persons named in those cases. The status report listed four such linked FIRs, one closed as untraced (cancellation accepted by the District Court), one ending in acquittal of the accused, one where the accused was declared innocent by the trial court, and one still pending before a Delhi court.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that she had been in custody since 13.03.2024, over two years and five months and pointed out that co-accused Rohit Sehgal, granted bail by the trial court, was subsequently declared innocent during investigation, while co-accused Veronika @ Divyanshi Kanwar herself had been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench after over a year in custody, with all offences being triable by a Magistrate. It was further submitted that out of 30 cited prosecution witnesses, only two had been examined and one given up, making the trial's conclusion a distant prospect.
The State opposed bail, submitting that the allegations were serious, involving the petitioner's alleged connivance in orchestrating false cases for extortion, and relied on the detailed status report and custody certificate reflecting her involvement and the trial's current stage.
Weighing the petitioner's prolonged custody of about two years and five months, the bail already granted to both co-accused (one of whom was subsequently found innocent), the Magistrate-triable nature of the offences, and the glacial pace of trial (2 of 30 witnesses examined), the Court held that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude, and found a case made out for bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits.
Notably, before parting with the order, the Court made a broader observation on a systemic concern arising from the facts of the case that of individuals allegedly filing repeated false complaints across jurisdictions.
Allowing the petition, the Court ordered the petitioner's release on regular bail, subject to furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. concerned, if not required in any other case, clarifying that its observations would not affect the merits of the case and directing the trial court to proceed independently and expeditiously.
Mr. Sandeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, Asst. A.G., Punjab.