Faridabad Court Denies Bail to Honey-Trap ‘Mastermind’: ₹33 Lakh Extortion of Businessman Exposed

Additional District and Sessions Court at Faridabad has refused bail to Mukesh Kumar, accused of masterminding a large-scale honey-trap and extortion racket targeting wealthy men.

Judge Jyoti Lamba observed that the accused was not a passive participant but appeared to be the “master mind of the Honey-Trap Gang(s), indulged in falsely implicating rich men in rape cases.” The Court said that granting bail at this stage would shake public confidence in the justice system.

The case against Mukesh Kumar stems from FIR No.193 dated September 26, 2024, filed at Police Station Sector-17, Faridabad, by businessman Dheeraj Gupta. Gupta alleged that he was falsely implicated in a rape case, allegedly orchestrated by Mukesh and his associate, the prosecutrix. According to the complaint, Mukesh initially demanded ₹50 lakh to ensure the prosecutrix would turn hostile, and Gupta was ultimately forced to pay ₹33 lakh under duress.

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) unearthed extensive evidence pointing to collusion. On the date of the alleged rape, Mukesh and the prosecutrix spoke seven times. Records showed they had known each other for seven to eight years, both had multiple FIRs against them, and were linked to similar offences of rape and extortion in the past.

The Court relied on these findings to conclude that there was prima facie proof of Mukesh Kumar’s deep involvement in the conspiracy.

Mukesh Kumar’s counsel argued that he had been in custody since July 2, 2025, that no money had been directly recovered from him, and that contradictions existed in the prosecution’s version. It was further contended that the prosecutrix was unknown to him, and that he was falsely framed because he ran a spa.

The State and complainant’s counsel countered these claims, stressing that Mukesh’s anticipatory bail had already been rejected by both the Sessions Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court. They argued that “such crimes of honey-trap have to be curbed with a firm hand.”

The Court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Yadav v. State of NCT of Delhi (2018) 12 SCC 129, which direct courts to consider the seriousness of the offence, the strength of evidence, the risk of witness intimidation, the possibility of reoffending, and the larger societal impact while deciding bail pleas.

Applying these factors, Judge Lamba observed that Mukesh Kumar showed a “criminal bent of mind” and was “habitual of committing such like offences.” His release on bail, the Court said, could endanger witnesses, allow repetition of the same crime, or even lead to absconding.

The Faridabad Court thus dismissed the bail application, calling the allegations too serious to ignore. The order underlines that while the rights of the accused are vital, they must be balanced against society’s need for protection from repeat offenders and organised extortion rackets.

Case Title: Mukesh Kumar v. State of Haryana

Bench: Additional District and Sessions Judge Jyoti Lamba, Faridabad

Date of Order: August 27, 2025