“Nocturnal Summons & Women’s Liberty” – Allahabad High Court’s Fresh Mandate on Transit-Anticipatory Bail and Police Notices

Introduction

In Sushila Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home) & Ors., Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:35336 (decided on 12 June 2025), the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Hon’ble Rajeev Singh, J.) was confronted with an unusual fact pattern: a woman not named in the FIR received a WhatsApp notice from the Delhi Police requiring her physical appearance at 9:00 p.m. in a police station situated hundreds of kilometres away. Invoking its powers under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita/Code of Criminal Procedure (post-2023 BNSS) and guided by the Supreme Court ruling in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka (2024) 4 SCC 746, the Court granted transit anticipatory bail, censured the issuance of a night-time summons to a woman, and directed administrative action against the police officer.

The case raises three pivotal issues:

Whether a woman, not named in the FIR, can legitimately be compelled to appear at a police station late at night.
The propriety of using instant-messaging service (WhatsApp) for serving investigative notices.
Whether a High Court, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the alleged offence, can grant transit anticipatory bail to facilitate an accused’s approach to the competent court.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court recorded that the applicant was not named in the FIR (Case Crime No. 392/2024, P.S. Mayapuri, West Delhi, u/ss 420 & 120 IPC).
The investigating officer’s WhatsApp notice required her to appear at 21:00 hrs on 13 June 2025, i.e., night-time.
Relying primarily on Priya Indoria, the Court observed that compelling a woman to attend a police station at late hours violates settled law and principles of dignity and liberty.
The Court therefore granted transit anticipatory bail on a personal bond of ₹25,000, directing that if she is detained, she be released forthwith.
The Court further chastised the Sub-Inspector, terming his action “not proper” and directed the Senior Registrar to forward the order to the Delhi Police Commissioner for appropriate action.

Analytical Commentary

1. Precedents Cited

Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 4 SCC 746

The Supreme Court, while expanding the protective armour of Section 438 CrPC (now Section 491 BNSS), ruled that every court has inherent power to grant transit anticipatory bail in order to safeguard a citizen’s liberty while she approaches the appropriate court having jurisdiction over the FIR. The apex court emphasised that denial of such relief may render the right to pre-arrest bail illusory, particularly where FIRs are lodged in distant States to harass the accused.
Influence: Judge Rajeev Singh transplanted this reasoning to the facts at hand, holding that despite the FIR being in Delhi, the Allahabad High Court could extend interim protection to the applicant residing in Uttar Pradesh so that she may seek regular anticipatory bail in the competent Delhi court.

Although not expressly cited, the judgment resonates with two other constitutional benchmarks:

D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416: Guidelines on arrest and detention, stressing the sanctity of personal liberty.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273: Controls on arrests for offences punishable below 7 years, placing an accent on Notice-for-Appearance under Section 41-A CrPC/BNSS.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning can be compartmentalised into four pillars:

Jurisdictional Competence for Transit Bail – Anchored in Priya Indoria, the Court exercised its inherent powers (Section 482 BNSS) to prevent potential abuse. Since transit bail is by nature temporary and protective, territorial limitations do not fetter the power.
Protection to Women under Criminal Procedure – Though Section 160 CrPC (now Section 167 BNSS) directly prohibits summoning women for interrogation anywhere other than their residence, the investigating officer’s notice of 9 p.m. interrogation was prima facie violative. The Court implied that bona fide investigative needs never justify late-night summoning of women.
Nature of Offence – The alleged offences (cheating and criminal conspiracy) are triable by a Magistrate; hence, custodial interrogation was not indispensable. This weighed in favour of pre-arrest protection.
Digital Service of Notice – While the Court took the WhatsApp notice on record, it did not disapprove digital mode per se; instead, it criticised the timing and content. Implicitly, the judgment recognises technological service yet warns investigators to comply with procedural safeguards.

3. Impact Assessment

The ruling, though fact-specific, seeds three doctrinal clarifications likely to reverberate across trial courts and investigative agencies:

Nocturnal Summons Prohibited – Any direction compelling a woman to appear at a police station after sunset is presumptively illegal. The judgment crystallises a bright-line rule that complements Section 160 CrPC jurisprudence.
Ease of Access to Transit Anticipatory Bail – The decision operationalises Priya Indoria at the High-Court level, providing a ready precedent for similarly situated litigants threatened with arrest in far-off States.
Accountability of Investigating Officers – By forwarding the order to the Delhi Police Commissioner, the Court reinforces administrative accountability, signalling that procedural infractions invite corrective steps.

Practically, defence counsel may now invoke this precedent to: (a) challenge late-night notices to women; (b) seek interim protection in the State of residence; and (c) demand departmental action against officers disregarding procedural norms.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Anticipatory Bail: A pre-arrest safeguard allowing a person to seek bail in anticipation of possible arrest.
Transit Anticipatory Bail: A temporary order protecting an accused while she travels to the court having territorial jurisdiction to seek regular bail. Duration: typically until a specified date or upon appearance before the competent court.
Section 482 BNSS (formerly Section 482 CrPC): Saves the inherent powers of High Courts to secure justice or prevent abuse of judicial process, including issuing orders not explicitly provided for elsewhere in the Code.
Notice under Section 41-A CrPC / Section 167 BNSS: A formal notice of appearance that must precede arrest for certain offences; designed to curb arbitrary arrests.

Conclusion

Sushila Yadav adds a decisive voice to the jurisprudence that prioritises the liberty and dignity of women in criminal investigations. By condemning late-night summons, affirming the right to transit anticipatory bail, and signalling administrative accountability, the Allahabad High Court has fortified procedural fairness in the digital age. Going forward, investigating agencies must recalibrate their practices to align with these safeguards, while courts have a robust precedent to quickly intervene against coercive police tactics that fall short of constitutional benchmarks.