Court highlights prolonged custody and slow trial progress; suggests creation of national database to track habitual complainants’ antecedents
In a significant ruling dated September 8, 2026, the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to Kashish Uppal, alias Sofia Uppal, who had been in custody for over two years in connection with multiple FIRs alleging conspiracy to file false rape cases for extortion. The petition was heard by Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth, who emphasized the prolonged detention of the petitioner and the slow pace of the trial as key factors in granting bail.
The case arose from an investigation by the Assistant Inspector General (AIG) of Crime Zone, Amritsar, which revealed that Kashish Uppal, along with co-accused Veronika @ Divyanshi Kanwar, allegedly colluded to register multiple complaints across Punjab and Delhi with the intention of extorting money by lodging false allegations of rape. A detailed status report filed in court showed several FIRs registered by Kashish Uppal, with varying outcomes—some accused persons were acquitted or declared innocent, while other cases remained pending.
The petitioner had been in judicial custody since March 13, 2024. Meanwhile, co-accused Rohit Sehgal was granted bail by the trial court in September 2023 and later declared innocent during investigation. Veronika was also granted bail by a coordinate bench of the High Court after spending around 15 months in custody.
The court noted that out of 30 prosecution witnesses, only two had been examined, with one witness being given up. This indicated that the trial was likely to take considerable time to conclude. Considering these circumstances, the High Court allowed the bail petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directing the petitioner to furnish bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
An important observation made by the court was the suggestion to develop a national-level portal or database to track the antecedents of persons involved in repeated or habitual filing of complaints. Such a mechanism, subject to appropriate safeguards and legal verification, would assist investigating agencies and courts by providing prior information about repeat complainants or accused individuals. The court emphasized that this system should balance the need for effective investigation with the protection of individual rights and privacy.
The judgment underscores the judiciary’s sensitivity towards prolonged pre-trial detention and the necessity of expeditious trial proceedings. It also opens up a discussion on leveraging technology for better criminal justice administration, particularly in cases where repeated complaints may be filed with malicious intent.
The trial court is expected to proceed independently on the evidence presented and decide the case as per law.
Bottom Line:
Bail granted on grounds of prolonged custody, co-accused being granted bail, and likelihood of trial taking considerable time to conclude. Court recommends exploring a national-level database for antecedents in cases of repeated complaints.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 483, Indian Penal Code Sections 120B, 199, 200, 211, 384, 420, 388, 389, 465, 467, 468, 471 (as incorporated under respective sections of BNSS)
Kashish Uppal @ Sofia Uppal v. State of Punjab, (Punjab And Haryana) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2975949
