CRM-M-54641- IN THE H SEEMA VERMA STATE OF PUNJ 1 The dat 2 The dat 3 The dat website 4 Whethe pronoun pronoun 5 The del judgme CORAM: HON Present: Mr. Ms. L Mr. J Ms. S MANISHA BATR 1. The Section 483 of Bh for grant of regul -2025 (O&M) 1 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB A CHANDIGARH RMA @ PUJA Versus PUNJAB date when the judgment is reserved he date when the judgment is pronoun he date when the judgment is uploaded ebsite hether only operative part of the judg ronounced or whether the full judgmen ronounced he delay, if any, of the pronouncement dgment and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANIS Mr. M.N. Jajoria, Advocate and Ms. Lavanya Gupta, Advocate and Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the pe Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab **** BATRA, J. (ORAL) The instant petition has been prefe of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanh regular bail in case arising out of F JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH CRM-M-54641-2025 (O&M) ... Petitioner ...Respondent served 20.03.2026 onounced 23.03.2026 loaded on the 23.03.2026 e judgment is dgment is Full cement of full Not applicable ANISHA BATRA the petitioner preferred by the petitioner under Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) ut of FIR No.111 dated 06.12.2014 oner dent nder SS”) 2014 AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.23 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-54641- registered under Bakshiwal, Distric 2. The a got recorded by t 09.11.2014, Arun his relative Gurcha wife Seema Verm house. They had mother of the com but the petitioner it. Thereafter, all morning, on wakin locks of the trunk scattered. By alle and giving the sam in his house, the p had stolen cash am the house. 3. After The petitioner and 02 gold topus, 02 the complainant petitioner was exte which her bail wa -2025 (O&M) 2 nder Sections 328, 457, 380 and 4 District Patiala. The aforementioned FIR was registe d by the complainant Ranjit Singh al Arun Verma who was got acquainted Gurcharan Singh only 01 year back, Verma @ Puja i.e. present petitione y had supper with them and thereafte e complainant started going to kitche ioner insisted that she herself would er, all of them had taken milk and ha waking up, the complainant and his f trunk were broken and all the belong y alleging that by mixing some intox he same to them with intent to comm , the petitioner and the co-accused ha ash amount of Rs.22,000/-, some dolla After registration of FIR, investigatio er and her husband were arrested on 2 us, 02 rings and Rs.10,000/- and 200 A inant were recovered at the instan as extended benefit of bail. During tr ail was cancelled on 06.11.2015 and and 489 of IPC at Police Station registered on the basis of statement ngh alleging that on the evening of ainted with the complainant through came to his house alongwith his itioner and 02 daughters came to his ereafter wished to drink milk. The kitchen to give warm milk to them, ould make the milk warm and bring and had gone to sleep. On the next d his family members found that the belongings of his house were found e intoxicating substance in the milk commit the offence of theft, robbery sed had made them unconscious and e dollars and gold ornaments kept in stigation proceedings were initiated. ed on 22.12.2014. One gold bangle, 200 Australian dollars pertaining to instance of the co-accused. The ring trial she absented herself due to 15 and bonds were forfeited to the ation ment g of ough h his o his The hem, bring next t the ound milk bery and pt in ated. ngle, ng to The ue to the AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.23 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-54641- State. She was de 04.07.2025. 4. It is a falsely implicated now. The trial wi by detaining her i implication in oth benefit of bail to therefore, argued t 5. Per co absconder and rem concluded as all th the stage of produ in conclusion of t again, if extended therefore, argued t 6. This C for the parties at co 7. The p alleged to have ad his other family commit the offenc valuable articles a -2025 (O&M) 3 as declared a proclaimed person. Sh It is argued by learned counsel for th icated in this case. She is in custody rial will take time to conclude. No us er in custody anymore. Her abse in other cases cannot be considered ail to him. The subject offences are gued that the petition deserves to be al Per contra, learned State counsel has nd remained absconded for a period of s all the prosecution witnesses have be producing defence evidence. As such n of the trial. Rather there are chan tended benefit of bail. Her antecede gued that the petition does not deserve This Court has heard the rival submis es at considerable length. The petitioner alongwith the co-acc ave administered some intoxicating sub mily members on the fateful night offence of theft and in pursuance the icles and money from the house of th She was subsequently arrested on l for the petitioner that she has been stody for a period of almost 01 year No useful purpose would be served absence was not intentional. Her sidered to be a reason for denying ces are triable by Magistrate. It is, o be allowed. el has argued that the petitioner is an riod of about 10 years. The trial has been examined and the case is at s such, there are no chances of delay chances of petitioner’s absconding tecedents are also not clean. It is, eserve to be allowed. ubmissions made by learned counsel accused who is her husband, is ing substance to the complainant and night of 09.11.2014 with intent to ce thereof, is alleged to have stolen of the complainant. The petitioner d on been year rved er ying It is, is an l has is at elay ding It is, unsel is t and to tolen ioner AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.23 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CRM-M-54641- remained abscond on 04.07.2025. T stated that there w into consideration cases including ca the attendant facts that the petition d the petition is dism 8. It is m the purpose of dec on the merits of th 9. Since any, is rendered in 23.03.2026 Amit Sharma -2025 (O&M) 4 sconded for a period of about 10 year 25. The trial has almost concluded here would be any undue delay in co ration the act and conduct of the petiti case registered under the provision t facts and circumstances, this Court ition does not deserve to be extended is dismissed. It is made clear that any observation of deciding the present petition and t s of the case. Since the main petition has been dism ered infructuous. (MAN Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes Whether reportable:- Yes/No 0 years. She had been arrested only uded now and as such it cannot be in conclusion of the same. Taking e petitioner, her involvement in other ovisions of Section 174A of IPC and Court is of the considered opinion ended benefit of bail. Accordingly, vation made herein above is only for and the same shall have no bearing dismissed, pending application, if (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No only ot be king other and inion ngly, for aring n, if AMIT SHARMA 2026.03.23 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.