Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports, so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: In a petition seeking continuation of interim medical bail and challenging the Sessions Court’s order curtailing the duration of bail, a Single-Judge Bench of Prateek Jalan, J., held that for the purposes of Section 187, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS),only the period of actual custody is relevant for calculating remand and that the period during which an accused remains on interim bail cannot prejudice the investigating agency’s right to seek police custody. Observing that medical bail once granted cannot be curtailed absent misuse of liberty or misrepresentation, the Court restored the original period of interim bail and allowed the petition.
Background
The present petition was filed under Section 480 BNSS, corresponding to Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), seeking continuation of interim bail granted to the petitioner in connection with FIR for offences under Section 103(1), Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) and Sections 25 and 27, Arms Act, 1959.
The prosecution alleged that the petitioner shot the deceased inside her residence after she refused to marry him and thereafter inflicted a gunshot injury upon himself. The petitioner had been in judicial custody since 21 November2025.
Interim bail had earlier been granted by the Sessions Court for 8 weeks on medical grounds, noting serious health complications including a gunshot injury to the chest, pulmonary tuberculosis, restricted mobility, and continuing medical treatment. Subsequently, on an application moved by the Investigating Officer seeking cancellation/modification of bail, the Sessions Court curtailed the bail period and directed early surrender on the ground that the investigation had not commenced and police custody remand might otherwise become unavailable.
Aggrieved by the reduction of the bail period, the petitioner approached the High Court.
Issue
The main issue was centred on Section 187(2) BNSS as whether the statutory timeline in the concerned section will be computed on the basis of the period of actual custody of an individual, i.e. excluding the period during which they are released on interim bail, or whether the period of interim bail would also be counted while computing the said timeline.
Analysis
At the outset, the Court examined the statutory framework governing remand under Section 187 BNSS and its predecessor provision, Section 167 CrPC. It noted that Section 187 introduces a modified scheme permitting police custody up to 15 days, either in one stretch or in parts. The aforesaid period must be within the first 40 days or 60 days, out of the detention period of 60 days or 90 days, respectively, depending upon the severity of the offence. Upon expiry of the aforesaid period of 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, the accused becomes eligible for release on default bail.
The Court referred to Fisal PJ v. State of Kerala,1 wherein it was held that entitlement to statutory rights such as default bail depends upon detention actually undergone. Periods during which an accused is released on interim or temporary bail cannot be treated as custody for purposes of computation and grant of default bail.
The Court further relied on Gautam Navlakha v. NIA 2020 SCC OnLine C 859, where the Supreme Court recognised that “broken periods of custody” may be pieced together for determining statutory bail, thereby emphasising that the relevant consideration is actual deprivation of liberty authorised by judicial order.
Applying these principles and precedents, the Court held that the Sessions Court proceeded on an incorrect assumption that continuation of interim bail would exhaust the time available for police custody remand. It stated that “only the period of actual custody would count towards reckoning of time under Section 187(2) of BNSS.” Consequently, sufficient time would remain available to the investigating agency to seek police custody even after expiry of the originally granted interim bail.
The Court observed that the restriction of bail already granted required cogent grounds such as misuse of liberty, violation of conditions, or fraud in obtaining bail. Improvement in medical condition or investigative convenience could not justify curtailment of liberty once granted. It was further observed that the object of medical bail is to facilitate the recovery of the accused. The Court also noted that there was no allegation of misuse of liberty or that the bail order was sought on the basis of misrepresentation.
Based on the aforementioned reasons, the Court concluded that the order modifying the earlier bail was legally unsustainable and the bail order dated 18 December2025 would continue subject to the conditions therein.
[Neeraj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. 190 of 2026, decided on 11-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Dr. Alok, Smriti Walia, Dhananjay Mittal, Shivam, Aanchal Budhiraja, Mayank Deswal, Arjan Verma, Advocates
For the respondents: Hitesh Vali, APP with Insp. Sanjeev Kumar
Amicus Curiae: Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shreedhar, Sukrit Seth, Radhika Yadav, Ananya Sharma
1. BAIL APPL. NO. 11634/2025.