The Delhi High Court granted protection from arrest to two petitioners who approached the Court alleging undue pressure from local police amid a matrimonial dispute. The Court also pointed out a significant procedural lapse in the investigation process.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Sonia Bansal and another petitioner seeking protection of their life and personal liberty. The matter stems from a matrimonial dispute involving petitioner no. 1 and her husband.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the husband, who is employed with the Delhi Secretariat, had used his position to initiate proceedings against them. Based on his complaint, FIR No. 158/2026 was registered at Police Station Alipur.
Read also:- Delhi HC Allows Student to Provisionally Appear in JEE Advanced 2026 Despite Eligibility Dispute
It was further argued that although the alleged offences in the FIR are bailable, the investigating officer (IO) was not accepting bail bonds and was allegedly subjecting the petitioners to continued pressure.
During the hearing, the State’s counsel, assisted by the investigating officer, informed the Court that petitioner no. 1 had been asked to join the investigation and clarified that there was no intention to arrest either of the petitioners.
However, the Court found a serious irregularity in the notice issued to petitioner no. 1. The notice specified the time for appearance but did not mention the date.
“The notice, the Court noted, does not even disclose the date on which the petitioner was required to appear,” the bench observed,
indicating concern over the possibility of such omissions being misused at a later stage.
Taking note of this lapse, the Court directed that the notice be placed on record and instructed the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) to examine the issue and submit a report.
The Court also examined submissions regarding a separate complaint made by petitioner no. 1 alleging assault by her husband. It was stated that a PCR call had been made, but no clear action had followed.
A police official present during the hearing explained that the complaint had been transferred between police stations and that the petitioner had indicated her intention to approach the Crime Against Women Cell.
Read also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Appeals Seeking Higher Land Compensation in Kadapa Case
However, the Court noted that the exact status of the complaint was unclear. Time was sought by the police to place a detailed status report on record.
During the course of the hearing, it was also submitted that petitioner no. 1 continued to receive calls from police officials. The police acknowledged that the concerned officer was posted at PS Alipur and was handling a complaint related to the matter.
The Court recorded these submissions without making any conclusive finding at this stage.
Considering the statement made by the investigating officer that arrest was not required, the Court granted interim protection to the petitioners.
It directed that:
- No coercive steps, including arrest, shall be taken against the petitioners till the next date of hearing.
- The petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation and join proceedings as and when directed in writing by the investigating officer.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 20, 2026. The Court has called for a status report from the concerned authorities and directed that the investigation proceed in accordance with law while ensuring compliance with its interim directions.
Case Details
Case Title: Sonia Bansal & Anr. vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(CRL) 1364/2026
Judge: Justice Girish Kathpalia
Decision Date: April 27, 2026
