SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Del) 55

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
SHALINDER KAUR , J.
Lovee Narula – Petitioner
versus
Directorate Of Enforcement, Govt Of India, Through Its Asistant Director Delhi Zonal Office-II - Respondent 
BAIL APPLN. 1159 of 2025 
Decided on : 28-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Garima Singh, Mr. Prince Kumar and Mr. D.D. Verma, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Standing Counsel, Mr. Anand Kirti, Mr. Aakarsh Mishra, Ms. Vaishnavi and Mr. Ishank Jha, Advs.

The court upheld the principle that humanitarian grounds can justify granting interim bail, while ensuring safeguards against evidence tampering.

Headnote:

(A) Bharatiya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 528 and 483 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 45 - Interim Bail application - Petitioner sought bail on humanitarian grounds due to critical medical condition of his Father suffering from Stage-4 Brain Cancer - Previous bail granted and extended multiple times - Respondent opposed bail citing potential for evidence tampering - Court granted interim Bail for 10 days with conditions including personal bond and regular reporting to police. (Paras 1, 5, 15)

(B) Interim Bail - Granting interim bail is at the discretion of the court and must consider humanitarian grounds, the nature of the offence, and the risk of tampering with evidence. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner sought interim Bail due to his Father's critical health condition, confirmed by medical reports, and previous bail was granted but revoked due to non-compliance.

Findings of Court:
The Petitioner is granted interim Bail for 10 days, subject to conditions to ensure compliance and prevent tampering with evidence.

Issues: The main issue was whether the interim Bail should be granted considering the medical condition of the Petitioner's Father and the potential risks involved.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of humanitarian considerations in granting interim Bail while also addressing the need to prevent evidence tampering.

Result: Interim Bail granted for 10 days.

JUDGMENT :

SHALINDER KAUR, J.

1. The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and read with Section 483 of BNSS and Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) has been filed by the Petitioner/applicant seeking interim Bail for a period of four weeks in the FIR No. 59/2024 dated 12.03.2024 registered under Sections 274/275/276/42/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 ( IPC ) at Police Station Crime Branch, in view of the medical condition of his Father, who is suffering from “Stage-4 Brain Cancer”.

2. Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submits that since the Father of the Petitioner, who is 58 years of age, is admitted to the hospital, whose medical condition has been deteriorating and is presently in a critical condition in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) on a ventilator, interim Bail be granted to the Petitioner to take care of his ailing Father.

3. He submits that even earlier this Court had granted interim Bail to the Petitioner on this account vide Order dated 12.09.2024 and had been extended by this Court on numerous occasions and the Petitioner had surrendered on 17.02.2025.

4. He further submits that the Petitioner‟s family consists of his Father, a younger Sister who is residing in Australia, his mother who has difficulty in walking due to her own ailments/previous injuries and is suffering from depression due to her husband‟s exacerbated medical condition as well as Petitioner‟s incarceration. Therefore, he submits, in these prevailing grave and dire circumstances, the responsibility of the Petitioner has increased significantly and she prays that the Petitioner be granted interim Bail for 4 weeks to be in attendance of his Father.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that earlier the Petitioner was granted interim Bail citing himself to be the sole care giver to his Father, however, vide Order dated 28.01.2025, this Court, while revoking the interim Bail granted to the Petitioner, dismissed the Regular Bail and directed the Petitioner to surrender within 7 days from the date of the said Order.

6. The Petitioner, he submits, had also approached the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging this Court‟s Order dated 28.01.2025, which came to be dismissed by the Apex Court vide Order dated 07.02.2025 passed in SLP (Crl.) No. 5434/2025, declining to interfere with the said Order and granted the Petitioner two days‟ time to surrender. However, the Petitioner did not comply with the said direction of the Supreme Court and only surrendered on 17.02.2025, i.e. after 8 days. The Investigating Officer also visited the Home of the Petitioner with two Constables but the Petitioner remained untraceable and the mother had no clue as to his whereabouts.

7. He further submits that earlier when the Petitioner was on Bail in the other FIR, he had been involved in committing the offences for which the present FIR has been registered.

8. He submits the Petitioner also moved an application seeking interim Bail before the learned Special Court, PMLA, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi which came to be dismissed vide Order dated 18.03.2025 holding that the allegations against the Petitioner are grave and he may tamper with evidence and influence witnesses and moreover, his family members are taking care of his ailing Father.

9. Nonetheless, he submits that the Respondent has verified that the factum that Petitioner‟s Father is currently in ICU and is on a ventilator. He also submits that his Father is attended by his Wife, Daughter and Daughter-in-Law. Therefore, learned counsel submits, keeping in view of the totality of facts and circumstances, benefit of interim Bail should not be granted to the Petitioner.

10. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by both the parties and perused the record, Status Report and the Certificate dated 27.03.2025 filed today, the sam

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top