Vinay Kumar v. State (Govt. NCT of Delhi)

1. The accused/applicant seeks grant of interim bail in case FIR NO. 286/2023 of PS Govind Puri for offence under Section 302/34 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.

2. The only ground on which interim bail for a period of 8 weeks is sought by the accused/applicant is the illness of his wife, for which earlier he was granted interim bail repeatedly by the learned trial court.

3. On behalf of accused/applicant, it is contended by learned counsel that wife of the accused/applicant underwent a spinal surgery due to which she developed Parkinson’s disease and there is nobody in the family to take care of her. It is also contended that the accused/applicant needs to come out of jail to make financial arrangements for medical treatment and arranging caretaker for his wife. No other argument has been advanced.

4. On the other hand learned prosecutor strongly opposes the application taking me through different orders whereby, the accused/applicant was granted interim bail by the learned trial court vide orders dated 23.06.2025, 21.07.2025, 18.08.2025 and 17.10.2025, after which further extension was denied vide order dated 15.11.2025.

5. Although the accused/applicant has not sought regular bail on merits of the case, keeping in mind the lenience prayed for, I examined the FIR and the manner of the alleged murder so as to balance the grounds on which liberty is sought by the accused/applicant with the nature and manner of offence allegedly committed by him.

6. I find substance in the view taken by the learned trial court that Parkinson’s disease is not of the kind that would get cured within a short time. It cannot be ignored that the trial is continuing and vital witnesses are yet to be examined. Earlier, the accused/applicant was being granted indulgence repeatedly by the trial court as his wife was undergoing some GIRISH KATHPALIA surgery according to the orders forming part of Annexure P[6] (colly). Further, admittedly the accused/applicant is currently in jail since 10.11.2025, so it cannot be that there is nobody to take care of his wife. Gravity of the offence and the manner in which it was committed, that too in the office of an advocate, also has to be kept in mind. The accused/applicant cannot be allowed to ensure evergreening of the interim relief which was granted earlier by the trial court and has met its purpose.

7. As regards the request for indulgence in order to enable the accused/applicant make financial arrangements, learned APP submits that on earlier occasions, the accused/applicant on being granted interim bail, admittedly, sold his assets to make those financial arrangements, so on this count also interim bail cannot be granted.

8. In totality of circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to grant any further indulgence of interim bail. Therefore, the interim bail application and the accompanying applications are dismissed.

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE) JANUARY 5, 2026