‘Not like post 30 days, kids won’t need care’: Delhi High Court rejects woman’s interim bail plea for childcare

Justice Girish Kathpalia dismissed the interim bail application on April 15.

“The ground on which interim bail is being sought is too generic and is in the nature of perpetuity. It cannot be said that after 30 days, there would be no need for the children of the accused to be taken care of,” the Delhi High Court observed.

The court, however, found no merit in the plea and dismissed the interim bail application on April 15.

Last saw kids in September 2025

The counsel representing the woman, advocate Joshini Tuli, submitted that since the accused has not met her children since September 2025, she deserves to be granted interim bail on humanitarian grounds. It was further submitted that her elder child had cleared Class 12 examinations and was set to pursue higher education, while the younger child had cleared Class 9.

Opposing the plea, Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal argued that the charges against the accused were serious and that such vague and general grounds cannot justify interim bail. He also informed the court that the trial in the case is being monitored by the Supreme Court.

Interim bail in contrasting circumstances

In contrast, the Delhi High Court had earlier granted interim bail to another accused in a separate case involving allegations of cheating and conspiracy, taking into account the medical condition of her two-year-old child.

The court observed that a child has a right to health, which includes not only medical care but also the soothing touch and physical presence of the mother. Justice Girish Kathpalia was, on February 9, hearing the plea of another woman who had sought interim bail on the grounds of her two-year-old daughter’s illness.

The Delhi High Court, in this case, pointed out that since there are limited allegations against the accused, the daughter cannot be denied the physical company of her mother, at least during the period of illness.

The court also emphasised that the infant of the accused is at an age that requires physical touch and the comfort of the mother to recuperate, and it is the right of that child to health, which cannot be ignored.