Alisha Moh a Mohammedhanif Shaikh v. Vers State of Ha of Haryana &
Case Details
CRM-M- -62696-2025 1- -1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN CHANDIGA PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT DIGARH 103 CRM-M-62696-2025 .2025 Date of Decision: 18.11.2025 Alisha Moh a Mohammedhanif Shaikh Versus Vers State of Ha of Haryana &Petitioner. &Respondent. CORAM: AM: HON9BLE MS. JUSTICE AA CE AARADHNA SAWHNEY. Present: Mr. Judgepreet Singh Warring arring, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Singh, Assistant Ad tant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Rishab Garg, Advocate fo cate for complainant. **** AARADHN ADHNA SAWHNEY, J. (Oral) 1. Petitioner, an accused in case n case FIR No. 271 dated 13.10.202 0.2025, under Secti r Section 305 of BNS, registered again against her at Police Station Sector- -14, Gurugram, gram, District Gurugram, has filed filed the present petition for grant o grant of anticipatory ipatory bail. 2. Relevant facts as emerging fr ging from the documents on record b cord be noticed her ed hereinbelow:-
Legal Reasoning
being on the prima facie issue ssues including consideration of som f some reasonable grounds that woul would go to show if the accused ha d has committed the offence or thos those facts that would reflect on th on the seriousness of the offence. The . The self-imposed restraint on delvin elving deep into the analysis of the e the evidence at that stage is for val valid reasons, namely, to prevent an nt any prejudice to the case set up b up by the prosecution or the defence ence likely to be taken by the accuse cused and to keep all aspects of t of the matter open till the trial rial is concluded. 12. In Prasanta Kumar Sa r Sarkar's case (supra) (Prasan asanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashish Ch h Chatterjee and another), a Divisio ivision Bench of this Court had highli ighlighted the factors that ought to b t to be borne in mind while con considering the anticipatory ba bail application and had stated tha that :- "9. We are of the opinion tha n that the impugned order is clear learly unsustainable. It is trite that that this Court does not, normall mally, interfere with an order passe assed by the High Court granting o ing or rejecting bail to the accused. sed. However, it is equally incumbe mbent upon the High Court to exe exercise its discretion judiciousl iously, GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.27 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -62696-2025 6- -6 cautiously and strictly in com compliance with the basic principl ciples laid down in a plethora of dec f decisions of this Court on the poin point. It is well settled that, among o ng other circumstances, the factors tors to be borne in mind while conside nsidering an application for bail are l are: (i) whether there is any prim prima facie or reasonable ground und to believe that the accused had co ad committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the a he accusation; (iii)severity of the punishment ent in the event of conviction; (iv)danger of the accused abs absconding or fleeing, if released o sed on bail; (v) character, behaviour, mea means, position and standing of th of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence be ce being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension sion of the witnesses being influence enced; and (viii) danger, of course, of just of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.= 11. The factual backdrop of the f the case and the role played by th by the petitioner i ioner in the entire incident has been h een highlighted in para 2 of this orde is order. In view of iew of submissions advanced by lea by learned State counsel and learne learned counsel for sel for complainant, the fact that the p t the presence of petitioner is needed eeded to recover sto er stolen money and jewellery etc., etc., the Court is of the opinion th ion that petitioner h ioner has not been able to make out a out a case of exceptional depravity o avity or hardship in ship in her favour entitling her this ext his extra ordinary relief of grant of pr t of pre- t bail. arrest bail. 12. The petition being devoid of a id of any merit is hereby dismissed. .2025 18.11.2025 gbs NEY) (AARADHNA SAWHNEY) JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.27 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Arguments
Prashant Gupta, son of Shri hri Darshan Gupta, set the crimin iminal law in mot motion by filing a complaint pointin inting therein that Alisha (petitione ioner) was employ ployed by them to work as a maid. id. On 30.8.2025, his (c) mother ke r kept Rs.35,000/ 000/- in her room and on the next n xt night of 31.8.2025, they found th d that Rs.15,000/ 000/- was missing. On enquiry from from Alisha, she stopped to coming ing to GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.27 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -62696-2025 2- -2 work. On On suspicion, they checked their their jewellery and found that som some articles we s were missing. Complainant furth urther alleged that on 13.9.2025, sh 5, she took Rs.40 s.4000/- from his sister9s bag. The theft am0ount was alleged egedly recovered red from her Pajama which she h he had kept in the toilet. With th th this backdrop, op, a formal case vide FIR No. 271 271 dated 13.10.2025, under Sectio ection 305 of BNS BNS, registered against her at Pol gram, Police Station Sector-14, Gurugram District Gu t Gurugram. Apprehending her arrest, peti st, petitioner moved an application fo tion for pre-arrest b rrest bail and the same was dismisse missed by learned Additional Session essions Judge, Gur Gurugram, in terms of order dated dated 29.10.2025. Aggrieved of whic f which, present peti nt petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petiti petitioner contends that petitioner has been falsel falsely implicated in the present cas nt case. In fact, the complainant wa was having a ba bad eye on her and had tried to m ed to molest her, when she (P) narrate narrated the said inc aid incident to his wife, the family go ily got offended and as a counterbla terblast thereto, pre to, present FIR was got registered. Learned counsel further submi submits that even th ven though no recovery is to be effect effected from petitioner, but she is sti still ready and and willing to join investigation as on as and when called for. Prayer fo ayer for allowing pr ing present petition has been made. 4. Per Contra, while opposing osing the request of petitioner, learne learned State coun counsel as well as learned couns counsel for complainant submit th it that petitioner w ioner was working as maid in the hou e house of complainant. She had bee ad been repeatedly tedly committing theft of cash and je and jewellery. Initially, complainant ant9s family gave ly gave her the benefit of doubt but wh but when on 13.9.2025, Rs.4000/- we were missing, w which were later found in her (P) (P) lower hanging in the toilet. S . She was questio questioned and was asked to return t turn the stolen jewellery and cash et ash etc. GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.27 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -62696-2025 3- -3 Initially, sh lly, she requested for grant of some sometime but later concocted a fals a false story that c that complainant had been making sex ing sexual advances towards her. As p As per learned cou ed counsel, if there was an iota of trut of truth in her allegations, it is not cle ot clear as to why s why she did not immediately report t eport the matter to police authorities o rities or to her own r own family members. Further, no s r, no specific time, date, month or ye or year etc. has b has been mentioned by petitioner w oner when objectionable words we ds were allegedly u edly used against her by petitioner. In er. In the factual scenario of the case case in hand, furth , further as per learned counsel, custo , custodial interrogation of petitioner tioner is needed to r ed to recover stolen money, jewellery ellery etc. It has also been submitte bmitted that after lo after lodging of FIR, even the husban husband of petitioner has been issuin issuing threats to c ts to complainant and his family memb members to withdraw the present cas nt case. Thus, no ca , no case for grant of pre-arrest bail is bail is made out. Prayer for dismissal o issal of the petition etition was made. 5. Heard learned counsel for th for the parties and have perused th sed the documents ments on record. 6. Before expressing any opinio opinion on submissions raised by bo by both the counse counsels, it would be appropriate to iate to refer to certain judgments o ents of Hon9ble Su ble Supreme Court, wherein the fa the factors to be kept in mind whi d while dealing wi ng with an application for grant o rant of anticipatory bail, have bee e been ssed. discussed. 7. Hon9ble Supreme Court in rt in plethora of judicial preceden cedents including ding Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Pun Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632, has tim has time and again r gain reiterated that while considering dering the anticipatory bail the Court Court is to take int ke into consideration the facts like s like gravity of offence, chances o nces of accused tam sed tampering with the evidence and e and probabilities of his fleeing fro ng from justice etc. e etc. Court should be circumspect a pect about the impact of its decision o ision on GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.27 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -62696-2025 4- -4 the society ociety as well. The anticipatory ba ory bail is an extraordinary discretio scretion which shou h should be exercised in the extraordin aordinary circumstances. 8. In Nikita Jagganath Shetty @ etty @ Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav v av vs. The State tate of Maharashtra and another, her, 2025 AIR SC 3375, the Hon9b Hon9ble Supreme C eme Court held that <Anticipatory ba ry bail is an exceptional remedy an y and ought not t not to be granted in a routine manne nner.= 9. Hon9ble the Supreme Cou Court in <P. Chidambaram v m vs. Directorate orate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SC 3 SCC 791), has observed as under: nder:- <67. Ordinarily, arrest f is a part of procedure of is the th investigation to secure not onl t only the presence of the accused b ed but several other purposes. Power ower under Section 438 Cr.P.C 197 1973 is an extraordinary power an r and the same has to be exercise rcised sparingly. The privilege of the f the pre-arrest bail should be grante ranted only in exceptional cases. T s. The judicial discretion conferre ferred upon the court has to be prope roperly exercised after application tion of mind as to the nature and gra gravity of the accusation; possibili ibility of applicant fleeing justice an e and other factors to decide wheth hether it is a fit case for grant ant of anticipatory bail. Grant nt of anticipatory bail to some ex e extent interferes in the sphere ere of investigation of an offence nce and hence, the court must b st be circumspect while exercisin cising such power for grant nt of anticipatory bail. Anticipator atory bail is not to be granted as as a matter of rule and it has to b to be granted only when the court ourt is convinced that exceptional cir l circumstances exist to resort to th to that extraordinary remedy.= GURBACHAN SINGH 2025.11.27 18:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M- -62696-2025 5- -5 10. Hon9ble the Supreme Court w ourt while deciding the case titled a titled as <Ms. X Vs. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and and another= (2023 SCC Online S ne SC 279) held a held as under:- <11.1. We propose to take a e a quick look at the consideration ations that ought to govern grant of a t of anticipatory bail. There are a lin a line of decisions of this court tha that have underscored the fact th ct that while deciding an application tion for bail, the court ought to refra efrain from undertaking a detailed a ed analysis of the evidence, the focu focus