Gurgaon: A city court has rejected the bail application of a 33-year-old woman accused of allegedly luring men into marriage to extort money, observing that the allegations against her are grave and that her release could hamper the ongoing investigation.The FIR, registered at Sector 65 police station on June 25, stated that Versha Rani concealed her previous marriages and criminal cases before marrying complainant Sandeep Kumar in June 2023, later extorting Rs 18 lakh by threatening false criminal cases.Judicial magistrate (first class) Nidhi Beniwal dismissed the bail plea noting the prosecution’s contention that the accused had allegedly concealed her previous marriage, cheated the complainant, prepared false documents relating to his property and projected herself as the owner of his commercial units.The complainant also alleged that Rani illegally occupied his office at EMAAR Digital Green in Sector 61 and stole Rs 2 lakh in cash along with important documents. He also accused her family of criminal intimidation, criminal conspiracy and trespass, alleging that they threatened to kill him when he approached the police.Based on his complaint, an FIR was registered under sections 318(4), 329(4), 61, 62, and 82(2) of BNS against Rani, her mother Usha, her father Narender, and her brothers Mohit and Deepak.Police have told the court that 13 FIRs are registered against the accused and her family members, including six cases alleging extortion from men after luring them into marriage.The defence council argued that the dispute was essentially civil in nature but had been given a criminal colour. It contended that the prosecution case was based on documentary evidence already in police possession, no recovery remained to be effected, and several matrimonial cases between the parties were already pending before competent courts.Opposing the plea, the state and the complainant argued that the accused had deliberately concealed her previous marriages, habitually trapped men into marriage, lodged false complaints against them and fraudulently projected herself as the owner and promoter of the complainant’s commercial property. The prosecution maintained that the investigation was still at a preliminary stage and her release could hamper the probe.
