Interim bail may be denied where medical grounds are unsubstantiated and past conduct demonstrates misuse of liberty.

The applicant, Sahil, is an accused in FIR No. 591/2024 (PS Narela) involving charges of murder, attempt to murder, and weapons violations.

The prosecution alleges the applicant participated in a home invasion where his brother opened fire, killing one and injuring two; the applicant specifically allegedly assaulted an injured victim with a danda.

The applicant sought interim bail for eight weeks for his wife’s disc prolapse surgery scheduled for 07.07.2026.

Procedurally, the applicant had previously been granted interim bail by the Sessions Court on June 3, 2026, for the same medical reason but failed to surrender on the stipulated date (June 11, 2026), eventually surrendering late on June 17, 2026.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to interim bail on humanitarian and medical grounds despite a history of non-compliance with previous bail conditions.

2. Whether the potential for witness tampering and the gravity of the offense outweigh the grounds for interim relief.

The court considered the criteria for interim bail under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (BNS) and the Arms Act.

The court applied the principle that discretionary relief like interim bail requires a "genuine requirement".

Statutory relief must be balanced against the risk of witness intimidation, particularly when public witnesses and injured parties are yet to be examined by the trial court.

The court scrutinized the applicant's prior conduct and the veracity of the medical emergency, noting that during a previous grant of interim bail, the applicant failed to take his wife to the hospital during the initial four days of release and failed to surrender upon the expiry of the bail term.

The court found the applicant's explanations for these lapses "completely unacceptable" and observed that the scheduled surgery had been postponed multiple times without being performed, suggesting a lack of a genuine medical exigency.

The court weighed the necessity of the applicant’s presence against the risk to the trial, noting that key witnesses and the injured parties had not yet testified, making the applicant's release a potential threat to the judicial process.

The application for interim bail and the accompanying criminal miscellaneous application were dismissed, and the court directed a copy of the order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for the accused.