In Preeti v. State of Haryana & Kuldeep Kaur v. State of Haryana, Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail petitions filed by the accused women in FIR registered u/s 308(2) [extortion] and 61(2) [criminal conspiracy] BNS, 2023.

Court held that the allegations disclosed a prima facie organized extortion racket involving false complaints of sexual harassment, compromise settlements in exchange for money, and involvement of a police official.

The complainant, Gurmeet Singh, alleged that petitioner Preeti had earlier filed a false complaint against his brother, Kuldeep Singh, which was withdrawn after receiving ₹2,75,000. It was further alleged that another woman, Manju Bala, similarly filed a complaint against Kuldeep Singh and withdrew it after receiving ₹2,55,000, while another complaint filed against Lakhbir Singh was settled after receiving ₹20,000.

According to the complainant, petitioners had formed a cartel that honey-trapped individuals, lodged false complaints of sexual harassment, and later extorted money in exchange for withdrawing those complaints.

Court noted the detailed status report filed by the SP, Ambala, wherein investigation revealed that 5 persons, including both petitioners, Man Singh, Manju Bala, and ASI Babli, were operating together. It was alleged that Man Singh acted as a mediator in each complaint, while the complaints were deliberately filed at police stations where ASI Babli was posted.

Investigation also disclosed 3 separate complaints involving an identical modus operandi, including one complaint filed by petitioner Preeti under an entirely different identity, "Manpreet, daughter of Fakir Chand," after which another monetary settlement was reached.

The investigation further revealed several pieces of corroborative material, including Call Detail Records showing frequent telephonic contact between the petitioner, ASI Babli, and victims during the relevant periods. The police also relied upon the disclosure statements of the co-accused, the recovery of ₹20,000 from Preeti and compromise documents relating to all 3 incidents.

State further informed the Court that approximately ₹5.30 lakh remained to be recovered, petitioner Preeti had failed to join the investigation despite a notice issued u/s 35(3) BNSS, and departmental proceedings had already been initiated against ASI Babli for her suspected involvement.

Therefore, High Court concluded that no prima facie case existed for granting anticipatory bail.