logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 DHC 628 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Delhi
Case No : Bail Appln. No. 4009 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Parties : Ajay Sehrawat Versus State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Sumeet Singh Shokeen, Kartikey Anand, Advocates. For the Respondent: Amit Ahlawat, APP.
Date of Judgment : 22-09-2026
Head Note :-
Indian Penal Code - Section 302/308/325/323/341/506/188/269/34 -

Comparative Citation:
2026 DHC 8162,

Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules / Orders Mentioned:
- Section 302 IPC
- Section 308 IPC
- Section 325 IPC
- Section 323 IPC
- Section 341 IPC
- Section 506 IPC
- Section 188 IPC
- Section 269 IPC
- Section 34 IPC
- Order dated 14.09.2026

2. Catch Words:
- Interim bail
- Extension of interim bail

3. Summary:
The accused seeks a four‑week extension of interim bail in FIR 218/2021 for multiple IPC offences. Earlier, four interim bail applications were granted, the fifth dismissed, and a seven‑day bail was later granted on 14 September 2026 for the father’s shoulder surgery. The surgery was postponed, and a new medical prescription dated 18 September 2026 was submitted. The State contends that earlier bail applications were dismissed or withdrawn and were not disclosed. The court notes the surgery is not major, the father is not critical, and other family members can provide care. It views the repeated bail requests as an attempt to perpetuate liberty. Consequently, the application is dismissed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

Judgment (Oral)

1. This application for extension of interim bail has been received by way of second supplementary list now at 03:50 pm.

2. The accused/applicant seeks an extension of interim bail for a period of four weeks in FIR No. 218/2021 of PS Model Town for offence under Section 302/308/325/323/341/506/188/269/34 IPC.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for accused/applicant was requested to disclose the previous interim bail applications and fate thereof. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submitted that earlier before the trial court, the accused/applicant had filed four applications for grant of interim bail on account of some shoulder pain. Those four applications were allowed and interim bail was granted for different intervals. The 5th interim bail application was dismissed by the trial court. Thereafter, according to learned counsel for accused/applicant, the first interim bail application filed before this Court was allowed vide order dated 14.09.2026 by a coordinate bench of this Court, granting interim bail for a period of seven days. That period is expiring tomorrow, so now this interim bail application has been filed.

4. But learned APP for State appearing on advance intimation submits that learned counsel has not disclosed that earlier also, two interim bail applications were filed by the accused/applicant and the same were dismissed on 10.07.2024 and withdrawn on 25.04.2025. Copies of those orders also have not been filed.

5. By order dated 14.09.2026, interim bail of seven days was granted by the coordinate bench on the ground that surgery of shoulder of father of the accused/applicant was scheduled for 16.09.2026. It is submitted by learned counsel that since the said surgery got deferred to 24.09.2026, he has filed the present application. Regarding that aspect, learned counsel places reliance on the medical prescription placed at page 43 of the application. But that medical prescription is dated 18.09.2026, whereas the surgery for which the accused/applicant was granted interim bail was earlier stated to be scheduled for 16.09.2026. If on 16.09.2026 father of the accused/applicant was not to be operated upon, he should have surrendered, but he opted to remain on interim bail and obtained fresh prescription on 18.09.2026 for postponement of surgery.

6. In order dated 14.09.2026, the coordinate bench also noted that the surgery to be undertaken by father of the accused/applicant is not a major surgery; that father of the accused/applicant is not in a critical condition; and that even otherwise, elder brother of the accused/applicant is available to take care of their father.

7. It clearly appears to be a case of effort on the part of the accused/applicant to evergreen interim liberty.

8. Therefore, the application is dismissed.

9. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being conveyed to the accused/applicant.

 
  CDJLawJournal