The Allahabad High Court recently granted transit anticipatory bail to a woman from Sitapur, Uttar Pradesh, who was summoned by the Delhi Police to appear at Mayapuri Police Station at 9:00 PM. The Court strongly disapproved of calling a woman to the police station during nighttime, declaring the action as “not proper.”
The case, titled Sushila Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And 2 Others, was heard by Justice Rajeev Singh, who took serious note of the improper police notice served to the applicant.
Read Also:- Delhi HC Bar Association Condemns ED Summons to Senior Advocate Arvind Datar
The woman, Sushila Yadav, was directed to appear at the police station in connection with FIR No. 0392 of 2024 under Sections 420 and 120 IPC, registered at Mayapuri Police Station, West Delhi. She was not named in the FIR, yet she was called for questioning at night on 13th June 2025 at 9:00 PM, as per a notice sent via WhatsApp by Sub-Inspector Shivpal Singh.
“It is evident that the applicant, being a lady, has been called to Police Station Mayapuri at 21:00 hours and is not named in the FIR. The alleged offence is triable by Magistrate. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is entitled to transit anticipatory bail,”
Read Also:- Kerala High Court: NCTE's Delay Cannot Deny Timely Recognition to Eligible Colleges
stated the bench.
The applicant’s counsel, Advocates Aman Thakur, Vineet Tripathi, and Shivanshu Goswami, argued that such late-night summoning was not only surprising but legally impermissible, especially since she was not even listed as an accused in the FIR. They further submitted that there was an apprehension of illegal detention.
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka , which underscores the rights of individuals—especially women—during criminal investigations. It emphasized that the law protects a woman from being called to a police station at night under normal circumstances.
The Additional Government Advocate (A.G.A.) and counsel for the Union of India did not dispute that the applicant’s name was missing from the FIR.
After perusing the FIR, the anticipatory bail application, and the digital copy of the notice sent via WhatsApp, the Court held the notice to be invalid and the action against procedural norms.
“The action of the officer who issued the notice is not proper by which the lady is directed to appear at night at 9:00 PM,”
Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Petitions Against Bulldozer Action on Ummed Sagar Dam Encroachment
observed Justice Rajeev Singh.
The Court granted transit anticipatory bail and stated that if the woman is taken into custody, she must be immediately released on furnishing a personal bond of ₹25,000.
Furthermore, the Court directed the Senior Registrar to communicate the order to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, for appropriate information and action against such irregular practice.
Appearances
Advocates Aman Thakur, Vineet Tripathi and Shivanshu Goswami for the applicant
Advocate Raj Kumar Singh for the Union of India
Case title - Sushila Yadav vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And 2 Others
