The Delhi High Court has asserted that the pendency of multiple criminal cases against an undertrial, including serious offences, should not automatically preclude the grant of interim bail on humanitarian grounds, such as the need to be by the side of a close family member undergoing major surgery, especially when the accused has already undergone prolonged incarceration and the trial is not likely to conclude soon.
The Court held that the existence of other relatives to care for the patient does not negate the right of the accused to seek interim liberty for such compassionate reasons. Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application and directed that the accused/applicant be released on interim bail for 22 days from February 11, 2026 to March 04, 2026, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court, to ensure appropriate medical treatment for his mother.
The Court also directed the accused/applicant to surrender before the trial court on March 05, 2026 and not to contact any prosecution witnesses, failing which the State could file an appropriate application even prior to the period of bail, i.e., March 04, 2026.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that the non-emergency nature of the surgery does not mean that the patient can defer the surgery endlessly, as only the patient knows the extent of pain and the need for surgery at the earliest. The Bench noted that the trial in the present case was not likely to conclude in the next three years, and it would be unreasonable to expect the mother to wait for such a long period for her surgery.
Regarding the availability of other relatives, the Bench held that merely having other relatives does not mean the son should be denied the opportunity to be by his mother’s side during her hospitalization, surgery, and recuperation. The Bench emphasized that the accused/applicant had already suffered incarceration for more than five years and that the State is expected to handle even hardened criminals with soft hands depending on the circumstances.
The Bench also addressed the argument regarding the accused/applicant’s involvement in 27 cases, clarifying that undertrial incarceration is not meant to punish but serves a different purpose, and guilt is yet to be proved. The Bench found substance in the suspicion raised about the truthfulness of the 27 cases, especially since the accused/applicant was discharged in three murder cases and the State lacked information on whether those orders were challenged.
Briefly, the accused/applicant had sought interim bail for a period of six weeks in connection with an FIR registered at PS Special Cell for offences under Section 3(1) and 3(4) of the MCOC Act. The interim bail was sought on the ground that his mother had to undergo knee replacement surgery. The State opposed the application on three grounds: (i) the surgery was not an emergency but elective in nature, as per a certificate from MAX Hospital; (ii) the mother of the accused/applicant had several relatives who could take care of her during the surgery; and (iii) the accused/applicant was involved in as many as 27 cases of serious nature, including three pending trial murder cases, one of which was a double murder.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate Jitendra Sethi, along with Advocates Hemant Gulati and Shobit Dimri, for the Petitioner
APP Amit Ahlawat and ACP Rahul Kumar Singh, for the Respondent
