Repeated ‘False Rape’ Complaints Across States: Punjab and Haryana High Court Suggests Privacy-Protected National Antecedents Portal, Grants Bail to Women Running Extortion Racket
Case Name: Kashish Uppal @ Sofia Uppal v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: 8 September 2026
Citation: CRM-M No. 34472 of 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that prolonged pre-trial incarceration, parity with a co-accused already released on bail, the Magistrate-triable nature of the offences and slow progress of the trial justified regular bail. The petitioner had remained in custody for approximately two years and five months, while only two of the 30 prosecution witnesses had been examined. The Court further observed that, in cases involving allegations of repeated or habitual filing of complaints across different jurisdictions, the authorities should consider developing a national-level portal or database through which verified antecedents of complainants and accused may be made available to investigating agencies and competent courts. Any such mechanism must incorporate appropriate safeguards and protect individual privacy.
Summary: The petitioner filed a second petition under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking regular bail in FIR No. 11 dated 8 August 2023, registered at the State Crime Police Station, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The FIR invoked several provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to criminal conspiracy, giving false information, instituting false criminal proceedings, extortion, cheating and forgery, along with their corresponding provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The petitioner’s first regular bail petition had been withdrawn at that stage on 26 February 2026. In the second petition, bail was sought primarily on the grounds of prolonged custody, parity with the co-accused, the Magistrate-triable nature of the offences and the likelihood of substantial delay in concluding the trial.
According to the prosecution, an investigation conducted by the AIG, Crime Zone, Amritsar, revealed that co-accused Veronika alias Divyanshi Kanwar, in alleged connivance with the petitioner, had caused multiple criminal cases to be registered in Punjab and Delhi by making false allegations of rape, with the alleged object of extorting money from the persons named in those cases.
The status report referred to four separate rape and POCSO cases in which the petitioner was shown as the complainant. One case had culminated in acceptance of an untraced cancellation report, another resulted in the accused’s acquittal, and in a third case the accused had been declared innocent by the Trial Court. The fourth case remained pending before a Delhi court. These proceedings formed part of the prosecution’s allegation that the petitioner and co-accused were involved in a wider pattern of filing false cases for monetary extraction. The High Court did not express any final opinion on the truth of these allegations.
The petitioner had remained in custody since 13 March 2024, amounting to approximately two years and five months. It was submitted that co-accused Rohit Sehgal had been granted bail by the Trial Court on 22 September 2023 and was subsequently declared innocent during the investigation. Another co-accused, Veronika alias Divyanshi Kanwar, had been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on 4 July 2025 after spending approximately one year and three months in custody.
The petitioner further submitted that all the alleged offences were triable by a Magistrate. Of the 30 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only two had been examined and one had been given up. The trial was therefore unlikely to conclude in the near future, and continued incarceration would effectively amount to punishment before adjudication of guilt.
The State opposed bail by emphasising the seriousness of the allegations. It maintained that the petitioner had acted in concert with the co-accused to institute multiple false rape cases with the ulterior object of extorting money. The prosecution, however, did not dispute the petitioner’s custody period, the bail granted to the co-accused or the limited progress made in recording evidence.
Considering the substantial period of custody, parity with the released co-accused, the nature of the offences and the slow pace of trial, the High Court found no justification for keeping the petitioner incarcerated for an indefinite period pending completion of evidence. Bail was granted without expressing any opinion upon the merits of the prosecution case.
Before concluding, the Court addressed the broader difficulty faced by investigating agencies when allegations of repeated or habitual complaints arise across different States or police jurisdictions. Developments in technology and communication have enabled information to travel across jurisdictions, but investigators may remain unaware of relevant proceedings involving the same complainant or accused elsewhere in the country.
The Court suggested consideration of a suitable national-level portal or database containing verified antecedent information concerning persons involved in repeated proceedings. Such a mechanism could enable investigating agencies to access relevant prior information and, wherever legally permissible, place it before the competent court to facilitate an informed decision.
The Court expressly qualified this suggestion by stating that any such database must operate subject to proper verification, legal relevance and appropriate safeguards. The rights and privacy of the individuals concerned must be duly protected, and antecedent information should not be treated as automatic proof of guilt, falsity or habitual conduct.
Decision: The High Court allowed the second regular bail petition and directed the petitioner’s release upon furnishing the requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Illaqa Magistrate or Duty Magistrate concerned, provided the petitioner was not required in any other case.
The Trial Court was directed to proceed independently on the evidence and decide the case as expeditiously as possible. The High Court clarified that none of its observations would prejudice either party during the trial. It also suggested consideration of a safeguarded national-level portal for verified antecedent information in cases involving allegations of repeated proceedings across jurisdictions.