Back
Delhi HC: Doesn't Eat Into Clock Under BNSS
In a significant ruling on India's revamped criminal procedure laws, the has held that only periods of count towards the timelines for under . Justice Prateek Jalan restored eight weeks of to Neeraj Kumar , accused in a brutal murder case, criticizing a 's move to cut short his medical relief. This decision, pronounced on , in Neeraj Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi (Bail Appln. 190/2026), aligns with emerging interpretations of the BNSS, which replaced the .
A Rejected Proposal Turns Fatal: The Murder at Heart
The case stems from FIR No. 652/2025 at , charging Neeraj Kumar under (murder, punishable by death or life imprisonment) and . Allegedly, on , Kumar shot Muskan dead inside her home after she repeatedly spurned his marriage proposals and threats. He then turned the gun on himself, sustaining a chest gunshot wound.
Arrested on , Kumar has been in judicial custody since, battling pulmonary tuberculosis and mobility issues from his injury. The initially granted eight weeks' on , citing his medical reports and rights, echoing . But on , it slashed the bail to end January 16, treating the IO's plea as a "modification" to allow investigation, claiming the full period would "eat up" remand opportunities.
Petitioner's Plea: Medical Mercy Over Hasty Remand
Kumar's counsel, led by and , argued the erred by re-evaluating his improved but still chronic condition—now "ambulatory" per reports—and prioritizing unstarted probe over health. They invoked , asserting periods exclude from Section 187 computations, preserving full remand windows post-surrender.
The State, via , echoed this statutory view but sought custody for effective investigation.
Amicus Steps In: Decoding BNSS's New Remand Math
With broader implications,
assisted as
, reinforcing that
limits police custody to 15 days
"in the whole, or in parts"
within initial 40/60 days of the 60/90-day detention cap. Unlike
, it emphasizes
timelines. Krishnan cited
Gautam Navlakha v.
(SC, 2022) on "piecing up" broken custody spells and
Fisal PJ
excluding
from statutory bail clocks.
Court's Sharp Scalpel: Only, No Bail Fiction
Justice Jalan dissected Section 187, agreeing with Kerala HC: timelines run on
actual detention
, not liberty periods.
"Such an interpretation is... consistent with the plain language of the statute,"
he wrote, dismissing worries over "lapsing" remand windows. Factually, Kumar's 28 custody days left ample 32 days post-bail for
in this death/life offence case.
The judge also faulted the
for curtailing granted bail sans misuse allegations:
"The very purpose of granting bail on medical grounds is to give the accused an opportunity of recovery."
Precedents like ( ) and ( , excluding non-custody gaps) bolstered this, as did Gautam Navlakha 's focus on " undergone."
Legal portals have highlighted this as aligning with BNSS's intent, noting it prevents investigative delays from trumping constitutional health rights.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the in Fisal PJ , that only the period of would count towards reckoning of time under Section 187(2) of BNSS."
"There was no basis for suggesting that the period available to the prosecution to seek remand in police custody, would lapse if the applicant remained onon medical grounds... the aforesaid period would be excluded altogether."
"Thehas also erred in proceeding to restrict the period of bail already granted to the applicant, on a re-assessment of his medical condition."
"In such circumstances broken periods of custody can be counted... if investigation remains incomplete after the custody, whether continuous or broken periods pieced together reaches the requisite period;becomes the right."( Gautam Navlakha , cited)
Bail Restored: Liberty Prevails, Probe Path Cleared
The petition succeeded: Kumar's eight-week from , stands restored, with original conditions intact. No merits comment was made. Justice Jalan thanked the amicus profusely.
This ruling clarifies BNSS ambiguities, safeguarding medical bail while ensuring probes aren't stalled. Future cases may cite it to exclude interim releases from remand math, balancing rights under against societal interests—especially in heinous crimes.
