Abuse of process and lack of bona fides bar successive interim suspension of sentence for surgery.

The appellant (A1) was convicted on 30.08.2019 for gang rape [u/s 376(2)(g)], wrongful confinement [u/s 342], and criminal intimidation [u/s 506] of a 14-year-old victim.

He was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant filed CRL.M.(BAIL) 920/2026 seeking interim suspension of sentence for 8 weeks to assist his mother during a scheduled gall bladder surgery on 09.05.2026.

The procedural history reveals a pattern of ten prior applications for interim bail or extension since 2019, many on the same medical grounds for his mother.

Notably, the appellant had previously failed to surrender on time after being granted interim relief on two occasions.

1. Whether the appellant has established sufficient, bona fide grounds for the interim suspension of sentence under Section 389 of the Cr.PC

2. Whether the successive filing of applications on similar grounds and subsequent failure to surrender constitutes an abuse of the process of the court

Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), which governs the suspension of sentence pending appeal.

The principles of judicial discretion, requiring the presence of bona fide grounds and considering the gravity of the offense.

The principle of preventing the "abuse of the process of the court," which bars litigants from filing successive, mala fide applications to circumvent judicial orders.

The court scrutinized the appellant’s litigation history, noting that since 2019, he had repeatedly secured interim bail for his mother’s surgery (e.g., in 2019, 2020, and 2023), yet the surgery was never performed, often citing lack of funds or abnormal vitals as excuses for extensions.

The court found a discrepancy between the appellant's claim that the surgery was "time-bound" for May 2026 and the Medical Superintendent’s report stating the surgery was tentatively fixed for June 2026.

The court highlighted the appellant’s poor conduct, specifically his repeated failure to surrender on time in 2021 and 2025, which necessitated the issuance of non-bailable warrants.

The court determined that the appellant was employing a "strategy" of seeking interim orders and subsequent extensions to avoid incarceration, rather than addressing a genuine medical emergency.

The court held that the appellant’s conduct and the gravity of the gang rape conviction militated against the grant of relief.

Declaring the application a clear abuse of the process of law, the court imposed exemplary costs of ₹25,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.