Judgment (Oral)

1. The accused/applicant seeks grant of interim bail for a period of eight weeks on humanitarian and medical grounds in case FIR No. 591/2024 of PS Narela for offence under Section 103/109/333/324/190 BNS and 25/27 Arms Act.

2. Learned APP for State assisted by Investigating Officer/Inspector Anil Kumar accepts notice and strongly opposes this interim bail application.

3. Broadly speaking, allegation against the accused/applicant is that he along with four co-accused persons entered the house of the deceased, after which brother of the present accused/applicant opened fire, thereby killing one person and injuring two others. The role ascribed to the accused/applicant is that he assaulted one of the injured with danda, even after the said injured had sustained two bullet injuries.

4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that the alleged incident occurred as a matter of consequence of the prior incident in which the victim party had assaulted the accused party.

5. The interim bail is sought on the grounds of impending surgery of wife of the accused/applicant. It is contended on behalf of accused/applicant that his presence is necessary to ensure that his wife undergoes the disc prolapsed surgery, which is scheduled for 07.07.2026.

6. The interim bail is strongly opposed by learned APP for the reason that the injured persons are yet to be examined before the trial court; and that conduct of the accused/applicant also disentitles him of any interim bail. Further, it is also contended that surgery of wife of the accused/applicant was scheduled on multiple dates but she did not get the same conducted.

7. Learned APP elaborates the conduct of the accused/applicant as follows. The accused/applicant was granted interim bail on 03.06.2026 by the Court of Sessions on the ground that his wife had to be operated upon on 04.06.2026. The accused/applicant was released from jail on 04.06.2026 but he did not take his wife to hospital on 04.06.2026 and thereafter, even for next three days. On 08.06.2026, the hospital fixed next date of surgery as 17.06.2026. The accused/applicant, in terms of order dated 03.06.2026, had to surrender on 11.06.2026 but he did not do so. The accused/applicant surrendered only on 17.06.2026 despite the fact that the surgery of his wife was scheduled for that day. Again on 17.06.2026, no surgery was performed and fresh date for surgery was given as 25.06.2026. Even on that day, no surgery was got performed and now the date given is 07.07.2026.

8. The explanation advanced by learned counsel for accused/applicant with regard to his above conduct is completely unacceptable. There is no reason for the accused/applicant having not surrendered on 11.06.2026 itself, when his interim bail had already expired. There is also no explanation as to why the accused/applicant did not take his wife to the hospital from 04.06.2026 to 08.06.2026. There is also no explanation as to why he would surrender on 17.06.2026, the date fixed for surgery, when he had already overshot the date of surrender. It shows that there is no genuine requirement of any surgery of his wife. Further, as mentioned above, public witnesses including the injured are yet to be examined by the trial court.

9. Keeping in mind the above circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to grant interim bail. Therefore, the interim bail application and accompanying application are dismissed.

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