'Case Of Honey Trap': Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Woman Who Allegedly Threatened Man Of Filing False Rape Case

The Delhi High Court has denied anticipatory bail to a woman who allegedly threatened a man of filing rape case against him if he failed to meet her demand of Rs. 2 Lakhs. "This is a case of honey trap," the Court observed.

Justice Subramonium Prasad was dealing with the anticipatory plea filed by a woman accused for offences punishable under sec. 328 (Causing hurt by means of poison, etc with intent to commit an offence), 389 (Putting person in fear of accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion) and 34 (common intention) IPC.

The complainant had alleged that he was invited to one Nikhil Bhattal's house where he was introduced to the accused woman. She is stated to be Nikhil's girlfriend. It is further alleged that the woman offered him a drink, following which the complainant became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, he found the woman rubbing his private part.

The case of the complainant is that ever since the alleged incident, demands for a mobile phone, TV and Rs. 2 Lakhs in cash were made by both the accused woman and Nikhil Bhattal failing which, he alleged, the duo threatened him of filing a fake rape case.

Subsequently, the complainant lodged an FIR against the duo which was followed by a cross-FIR against the complainant, alleging rape.

The Court noted that Nikhil has already been released on bail in July this year. However, the prosecution alleged that the Petitioner has been on the run and she surfaced only when the co-accused, Nikhil Bhattal, was granted bail.

The prosecution further claimed that investigation is at a very nascent stage qua the petitioner who is alleged of an offence under Section 328 IPC for which punishment is up to ten years of imprisonment; the Petitioner shows that she can abscond and therefore anticipatory bail ought not be granted. 

"A reading of the FIR shows that this is a case of honey trap. The allegation against the petitioner is that she has threatened the complainant and has demanded money," the Court said.

"Charge-sheet qua the petitioner is yet to be filed. The petitioner's voice sample has to be taken and the investigation has also to be conducted as to whether there are any other cases in which the petitioner is involved and as stated earlier the investigation is at a nascent stage," it said further.

Thus holding that there is some justification in the contention of the APP that the conduct of the petitioner does show that there is a likelihood of her fleeing from justice and that she would not cooperate with the investigation, the bail plea was rejected.

Title: ISHU v. THE STATE

Click Here To Read Order