Punjab-Haryana High Court
Seema Verma Alias Puja vs State Of Punjab on 23 March, 2026
CRM-M-54641--2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-54641-2025 (O&M)
SEEMA VERMA @ PUJA
...
.. Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
1 The date when the judgment is reserved 20.03.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 23.03.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 23.03.2026
website
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment and reasons thereof.
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present: Mr. M.N. Jajoria, Advocate and
Ms. Lavanya Gupta, Advocate and
Mr. J.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Sakshi Bakshi, AAG, Punjab
****
MANISHA BATRA, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS") for grant of regular bail in case arising out of FIR No. No.111 111 dated 06.12.2014 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-03-2026 01:40:42 ::: CRM-M-54641--2025 (O&M) 2 registered under Sections 328, 457, 380 and 489 of IPC at Police Station Bakshiwal, District Patiala.
2. The aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of statement got recorded by the complainant complainant Ranjit Singh alleging that on the evening of 09.11.2014, 4, Arun Verma who was got acquainted with the complainant through his relative Gurcharan Singh Sing only 01 year back, came to his house alongwith his wife Seema Verma @ Puja i.e. present petitione petitioner and 02 daughters came to his house.. They had supper with them and thereafter wished to drink milk. The mother of the complainant started going to kitchen to give warm milk to them, but the petitioner insisted that she herself would make the milk warm and nd bring it. Thereafter, all of them had taken milk and had gone to sleep. On the next morning, on waking up, up the complainant and his family members found that the locks of the trunk were broken and all the belongings of his house were found scattered. By alleging that by mixing some intoxicating substance in the milk and giving the same to them with intent to commit the offence of theft, robbery in his house, the petitioner and the co-accused co accused had made them unconscious and had stolen cash amount of Rs.22,000/-, Rs.22 , some dollars and gold ornaments kept in the house.
3. After registration of FIR, investigation proceedings were in initiated.
itiated.
The petitioner and her husband were arrested on 22.12.2014. One gold bangle, 02 gold topus, 02 rings and Rs.10,000/-
Rs.10,000/ and 200 Australian dollars pertaining to the complainant were recovered at the instance of the co co-accused.. The petitioner was extended benefit of bail. During trial she absented herself due to which her bail was cancelled on 06.11.2015 and bonds were forfei forfeited ted to the 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-03-2026 01:40:43 ::: CRM-M-54641--2025 (O&M) 3 State. Shee was declared a proclaimed person. Sh Shee was subsequently arrested on 04.07.2025.
4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that she he has been falsely implicated in this case. Shee is in custody for a period of almost 01 year now. The trial will take time to conclude. No useful purpose would be served by detaining her er in custody anymore. Her absence was not intentional. H Her er implication in other cases cannot be considered to be a reason for denying benefit of bail to him.
him. The subject offences are triable by Magistrate. It is, therefore, argued that the petition deserves to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has argued that the petitioner is an absconder and remained absconded for a period of about 10 yea years.
rs. The trial has concluded as all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and the case is at the stage of producing defence evidence. As such, there are no chances of delay in conclusion of the trial. Rather there are chances of petitioner's absco absconding nding again, if extended benefit of bail. Her antecedents are also not clean. It is, therefore, argued that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
6. This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable considerabl length.
7. The petitioner alongwith the co-accused accused who is hher husband, is alleged to have administered some intoxicating substance to the complainant and his other family members on the fateful night of 09.1 09.11.2014 with intent to commit the offence of theft theft and in pursuance thereof, is alleged to have stolen valuable articles and money from the house of the complainant. The petitioner 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-03-2026 01:40:43 ::: CRM-M-54641--2025 (O&M) 4 remained absconded for a period of about 10 years. Shee had been arrested only on 04.07.2025. The trial has almost concluded concluded now and as such it cannot be stated that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the same. Taking into consideration the act and conduct of the petitioner, hher involvement in other cases including case registered under the provisions of Secti Section on 174A of IPC and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petition does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
8. It is made clear that any observation made her herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.
9. Since the main petition has been dismissed dismissed, pending application, if any, is rendered infructuous.
(MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE 23.03.2026 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Amit Sharma Whether reportable:- Yes/No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-03-2026 01:40:43 :::