Smt Abrunnisha Abdul Samad Shaikh v. The State Govt Of NCT Of Delhi
$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL APPLN. 1536/2025 SMT ABRUNNISHA ABDUL SAMAD SHAIKH .....Applicant Through:
Mr. R.P.S. Bhatti, Advocate.
versus THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for the State.
Mohd. Nazim and Mohd. Sami, Advs.
for respondent no. 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
O R D E R
% 22.07.2025 1.
The applicant (mother-in-law of complainant-wife) is seeking Anticipatory Bail in case FIR No. 0086/2024 dated 13.03.2024 registered at P.S. Shaheen Bagh for the alleged offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 and 34 IPC arising out of a matrimonial dispute between her son and his wife.
2.
Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP and perused the case file.
3.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that applicant is a 64-yearold widow residing in Mumbai, has been falsely implicated in a matrimonial dispute involving her daughter-in-law. She was earlier granted anticipatory bail, which was later wrongly cancelled vide an order dated 10.03.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saket Courts, New Delhi. He would contend that earlier anticipatory bail was cancelled on false grounds BAIL APPLN. 1536/2025 Page 1 of 3 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
of non-cooperation. He also cites Section 179(1) of BNSS, asserting that applicant cannot be compelled to travel outside Mumbai for investigation. The applicant has no criminal history, did not even reside with the complainant, and suffers from age-related ailments, learned counsel would urge. He would submit that applicant is willing to cooperate and seeks protection from arbitrary arrest, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, especially for women and senior citizens. 4.
Having heard and perused the FIR, I am of the prima facie view that bald allegations against applicant, lacking any specific particulars, do not make out a case of arrest against applicant at this stage. The allegations appear to have been levelled with a collateral motive stemming from matrimonial acrimony.
5.
As an upshot, in the event of formal arrest of applicant, she is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing a bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer (IO)/Arresting Officer concerned, subject to her complying with the conditions/provisions contained in Section 482(2) of BNSS.
6.
On doing so, the applicant shall cooperate in the investigation, failing which the State is at liberty to approach this Court seeking cancellation of the protection granted to the applicant.
7.
Moreover, if during the investigation, the Investigating Officer finds that there is any incriminating material warranting her custodial interrogation, he/she shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail granted vide instant order.
8.
Needless to state that nothing observed hereinabove shall amount to an expression on the merits of the case and shall not have a bearing on the BAIL APPLN. 1536/2025 Page 2 of 3 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
trial of the case as the same is only for the purpose of the disposal of the present bail application.
9.
The Bail Application as well as the pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
ARUN MONGA, J JULY 22, 2025 kd BAIL APPLN. 1536/2025 Page 3 of 3 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.