‘Can’t deny chance to be by mother’s side during surgery’: Delhi High Court grants interim bail to man involved in 27 cases

Findings

• Even if the surgery to be performed on the petitioner’s mother is not an emergency surgery, it cannot be deferred indefinitely.
• The patient only knows the extent of the pain and the need for surgery, though it is not an emergent surgery.
• The submission of the prsoecution suggest that the trial in the present case is not likely to conclude in next three years.
• The petitioner’s mother cannot be expected to keep suffering, waiting for a knee transplant for such a long time.
• The petitioner has already been in jail for more than five years.
• The state is expected to handle even “hardened criminals”, and the undertrials in custody should be dealt with “soft hands” at times, depending upon the circumstances.

• It is not a case of some distant relative on whose marriage or illness the petitioner seeks interim liberty, but a case where his mother has to undergo surgery.
• In three murder cases out of the 27 cases claimed by the state, the petitioner was discharged, and the investigating officer expressed ignorance if the state challenged those orders of discharge.
• There is a suspicion regarding the truthfulness of those 27 cases; however, the exact truth of these cases will be possible only after the completion of their trial.
• The petitioner’s interim bail application is allowed, subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs 50,000 with one surety.

‘Elective surgery, 27 cases’

• Assistant public prosecutor Amit Ahlawat argued that the mother’s surgery for a knee transplant is not an emergency but an elective surgery, which can be performed even later, producing a certificate by a hospital concerned confirming the same.
• Ahlawat further emphasised the statement of the petitioner’s mother, where she mentioned the number of relatives available who can take care of her at the time of surgery.
• It was further submitted that the petitioner is involved in as many as 27 cases of serious nature, including three pending trial murder cases, out of which one case is of double murder.

‘Fabrication by police’

• Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Jitendra Sethi submitted that none of the arguments of the state has any merit for considering the interim bail.
• Sethi also referred to the interim bail granted to two of the co-accused persons, who are also involved in several cases and surrendered upon expiry of the interim bail period.
• Concerning the 27 cases stated by the state, Sethi argued that three of the cases were of murder and in all three cases, his client was discharged.

• He highlighted that mentioning these three murder cases shows fabrication on the part of the police to ensure that the petitioner remains behind bars.
• It was also submitted that his client has been in jail for the past five and a half years and deserves at least some relief in the circumstances of the present nature.