Primary sources · Judgment

ALKA SHARMA Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI

High Court of Delhi · BAIL APPLN. - 1292/2026 · 12 Aug 2026


Reproduced as issued. This is the text of the document as published by High Court of Delhi, ingested automatically and not edited, summarised or interpreted. Refer to the original document for the authoritative text.

BAIL APPLN. 1292/2026 Page 1 of 2 pages

$~1

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 12.08.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010133082026

+ BAIL APPLN. 1292/2026

ALKA SHARMA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Maninder Singh, Senior

Advocate with Mr. Ajay Kumar, Ms.

Pallavi, Ms. A. Kaur, Mr. Paras, Mr.

Harsh Tomar, Mr. Turang Pandit, Mr.

Aditya Sharma, Mr. J. Narang, Ms.

Geetanjali Reddy and Mr. Sagar,

Advocates.

versus

STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State

with SI Rajak Ahmad.

Mr. Rama Nath Jha, Advocate for

complainant.

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The applicant/accused seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 08/2026 of

PS C.R. Park for offence under Section 318(4)/336(3)/340(2)/316(5) BNS.

3. In the first call today, the matter was passed over at request from the

side of the accused/applicant. In this second call, learned Senior Counsel for

BAIL APPLN. 1292/2026 Page 2 of 2 pages

accused/applicant has initiated his submissions. It is stated by learned Senior

Counsel that even after withdrawal of protection against arrest her by way of

order dated 08.07.2026, the accused/applicant joined investigation by

visiting the IO on 20.07.2026 and 06.08.2026, but the IO did not arrest

which shows that the accused/applicant is not required for any custodial

interrogation.

4. The IO/SI Rajak Ahmad present in Court admits that after withdrawal

of protection, the accused/applicant joined investigation by reporting to him

on the said two dates, but he opted not to arrest her. In response to a specific

query, the IO submits that at present he does not want to arrest the

accused/applicant. To arrest or not is obviously prerogative of the IO.

5. That being so, the present anticipatory bail application is disposed of

directing that in case the IO considers it necessary to arrest the

accused/applicant, he shall give her a prior notice of two weeks so that she

may approach the Court of Sessions for grant of anticipatory bail, if so

advised.

GIRISH KATHPALIA

(JUDGE)

AUGUST 12, 2026/rs

Primary source: High Court of DelhiView original document →

← All primary sources

ALKA SHARMA Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI | JurisIntel