Disposed¶27

Seema v. State of Haryana

Anticipatory bail – Section 482 BNSS

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2025CRM-M/24956/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Seema v. State of Haryana, CRM-M-24956-2025, Punjab & Haryana High Court (Harpreet Singh Brar J., 28.05.2025): anticipatory bail under S.482 BNSS in FIR No.08 dated 04.01.2025, P.S. Yamuna Nagar Sadar, under PCPNDT Act 1994, NMC Act 2019 and BNS 2023 provisions; interim order dated 08.05.2025 made absolute after petitioner joined investigation and State said no further custodial interrogation required; bail subject to S.482(2) BNSS (erstwhile S.438(2) Cr.P.C.) conditions; petition disposed of with trial to proceed on merits.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail: interim order dated 08.05.2025 made absolute; petitioner admitted to anticipatory bail subject to the conditions under Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.), with the trial to proceed on its own merits. ¶27

Seema Vs State of Haryana — Anticipatory Bail | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, Seema, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS in FIR No.08 dated 04.01.2025 registered at Police Station Yamuna Nagar Sadar under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6(a)-(c), 18, 23, 25, 29 PCPNDT Act 1994, Section 34 NMC Act 2019 and Sections 61, 91, 318(4) BNS 2023.

¶12

Court's answer

By interim order dated 08.05.2025 (made absolute by this final order), the petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer within two weeks and, in the event of arrest, to be admitted to interim anticipatory bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating/Arresting Officer, while cooperating with the investigation.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

In view of the State counsel's statement that the petitioner has joined the investigation and is not required for further custodial interrogation, the interim order dated 08.05.2025 is made absolute; the petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions enumerated in Section 482(2) BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.).

¶27

Key takeaways

The petition is disposed of; nothing observed shall be construed as an expression of opinion by this Court lest it prejudice the trial, and the learned trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — Section 482 BNSS — FIR No.08 dated 04.01.2025, P.S. Yamuna Nagar Sadar, under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6(a)-(c), 18, 23, 25, 29 PCPNDT Act 1994, Section 34 NMC Act 2019 and Sections 61, 91, 318(4) BNS 2023 — petitioner contended she was falsely implicated, not in possession/occupation/employment of the clinic, not a doctor, radiologist or technician, main accused Samuel James already arrested, and co-accused Sushma Rani already granted anticipatory bail (CRM-M-11114-2025, order dated 27.03.2025) — by interim order dated 08.05.2025, relying on Satender Kumar Antil, Siddharam Mhetre, Sibbia, Arnesh Kumar and Sushila Aggarwal, petitioner directed to join investigation with interim bail in the event of arrest — State conceded petitioner joined investigation and custodial interrogation not required — interim order made absolute subject to Section 482(2) BNSS conditions — petition disposed of; observations not to be treated as expression of opinion and trial to proceed on its own merits.

¶1

208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M-24956-2025 Date of decision: 28.05.2025

SEEMA

...PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA

...RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for t h e petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Harya n a.

¶10

¶11

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)

¶12

Ins t ant petition is preferred und e r Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraks h a Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘B N SS’) seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No.08 d a ted 04.01.2025 under Sections 3 , 4, 5, 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), 18, 23, 25, 29 of Pre- C onception and Pre-Natal Dia g nostic Techniques Act, 1994, Section 34 of N ational Medical Commission A ct, 2019 and Sections 61, 91, 318(4) of the B haratiya Nyaya Sanhita, 202 3 , registered at Police Station Yamuna Nagar S adar, District Yamuna Nagar.

¶13

On 08.05.2025, following order w a s passed:

¶14

“Instant petition is preferred under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Su r aksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) seeking antici p atory bail in FIR No.8 dated 04.01.2025 under Sectio n s 3, 4, 5, 6(a), 6(b), 6(c), 18, 23, 25, 29 of Pre-Conce p tion and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994, Section 34 of National Medical Commission Act, 2019 a nd Sections 61, 91, 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, registered at Police Station Yamuna Nagar S a dar, District Yamuna Nagar. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia,

¶15

MANISHA 2025.05.28 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶16

CRM-M-24956-2025

¶17

¶18

contends that the petitio n er has been falsely implicated in the present case. She is not in possession, occupation or employee of the clini c , where the alleged pre-natal disgnostic test was cond u cted. The petitioner is not even a Doctor, Radiologist or T echnician. Further, main accused in the present case is one Samuel James and he has already been arrested. It is further contended that similarly situated co-accused of t h e petitioner, namely Sushma Rani, has already been grant e d the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide o rder dated 27.03.2025 passed in CRM-M-11114-2025 (A n nexure P-2). The petitioner is not involved in any other case and she is having clean antecedents.

¶19

Notice of motion f or 28.05.2025.

¶20

Keeping in view t he ratio of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (2022) 10 SCC 51; Si d dharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2010 SCC OnLine SC 137; Gurbaksh Singh Si b bia etc. Vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565, Arnesh Kum a r Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Sushila Aggarw a l Vs. State of NCT Delhi 2020 (1) RCR (Criminal) 833, th e petitioner is directed to appear before Investigating Off i cer within a period of two weeks from today and thereaft e r, as directed by the Investigating Officer. In the event o f arrest, the petitioner will be admitted to interim a nticipatory bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Investigating/Arresting Officer. The petitioner shall cooperate with the in v estigation/Arresting Officer and abide by the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of BNSS (erstwhile Secti o n 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).

¶21

If the Arrestin g Officer does not permit the petitioner to join the investigation, she would appear before learned Illaqa M a gistrate, who would then summon the Arresting Officer an d direct him to join the petitioner in the investigation, in term s of the order of this Court. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as

¶22

MANISHA 2025.05.28 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

¶23

CRM-M-24956-2025

¶24

¶25

an expression of opinio n by this Court and learned trial Court shall decide the c ase on its own merits, strictly in accordance with law.”

¶26

Le a rned State counsel, on instr u ctions from SI Lakhwinder Masih, submits that in compliance of order d a ted 08.05.2025 passed by this Court, the petiti o ner has joined the investigatio n and is not required for further custodial interr o gation.

¶27

Ke e ping in view the statement m a de by learned State Counsel, the order dated 0 8.05.2025, is made absolute. T h e petitioner shall abide by the terms and con d itions enumerated in Section 4 82(2) BNSS, 2023 (Erstwhile Section 438(2) C r.P.C.)

¶28

Th e petition is accordingly dispose d of. 6. No t hing observed hereinabove s hall be construed to be an expression of o p inion by this Court lest it may p rejudice the trial. The learned trial Court is d i rected to proceed with the tria l on its own merits, strictly in accordance wit h law.

¶29

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) May 28, 2025 JUDGE manisha (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No

¶30

MANISHA 2025.05.28 18:02 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment

Seema v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vineet Alias Vinit Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Iqbal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab

Saurav Virdi Vs State of Punjab

Pxxxx Alias Pxxxx Vs State of Haryana

Major Singh Vs State of Punjab