$~97 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 06.04.2026 + BAIL APPLN. 1332/2026 & CRL.M.A. 10485/2026 PRITHVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amjad Khan and Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocates versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Hemant Mehla, APP for the State CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks extension of interim bail for further 60 days in case FIR No. 227/2024 of Police Station Uttam Nagar for offence under Section 302/365/341/201/120B/34 IPC.

2. This application has been received now in this post-lunch session by way of second supplementary list after mentioning was allowed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant.

3. Broadly speaking, the accused/applicant facing trial for offence under Section 302/34 IPC was granted interim bail by the Court of Sessions vide order dated 17.03.2026 for a period of 14 days on the ground of illness of his father, who was advised a cardiac surgery. Earlier to that also, the BAIL APPLN. 1332/2026 Page 1 of 3 pages Digitaly signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA Signature Not Verified GIRISH D 2. N 5. : 4 c .2 = 0 IN = , 8 o 4 = 0 H 1d IG d H 8 8 C 9 O b U 2 R 7a T 7 O 7 F b 2 D f E 6 L 5 H f I, e4afec4556

9af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, Digitally Signed KATHPALIAp s 9 e 6 o r b s ia t 4 a l 0 N lC f u 8 o m 0 d c b e b = e d r 1 2 = 1 e d 0 e 3 0 e e 0 6 8 3 0 6 , 4 7 s 0 t 9 = 2 6 c D 4 4 e 5 8 l 1 7 h e 9

i,

c 6 4 5 5 f c 8 0 0 7 1 b e 5 2 d 6 1 f 5 a 5 , 709

By:RAHUL YADAV c D n a = te G : I 2 R 0 IS 2 H 6 . K 0 A 4. T 0 H 6 P 1 A 7 L :2 IA 8 :34 -07'00'

accused/applicant was repeatedly granted interim bail by the Court of Sessions. The accused/applicant was to surrender on 03.04.2026, but he did not do so. Instead, he filed an application for extension of the interim bail on the grounds of illness of his mother, which application was dismissed on

04.04.2026. But till date, the accused/applicant has not surrendered.

4. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that looking into the medical condition of his mother, who has been recently released on interim bail in the same case, the accused/applicant needs to take care of her. It is also contended that the accused/applicant has never misused the interim liberty granted to him repeatedly.

5. Learned APP for the State accepts notice and strongly opposes the bail application on the ground that the accused/applicant, unable to obtain regular bail and has been repeatedly taking interim bail.

6. At the outset, it would be apposite to note that in order dated 17.03.2026, the learned Court of Sessions made it clear, that too in bold letters that no further application for bail/extension of bail would be entertained without surrendering before the court. Despite such clear order, the accused/applicant opted not to surrender on 03.04.2026 and even thereafter, till date.

7. Further, the interim bail on 17.03.2026 was allowed to the accused/applicant on the ground that his father has to undergo a surgery. But D Si i g gi n ta a l t l u y r S e i g N n o ed t Verified G KA IR T I H SH P ALIA DD26Cps9cD e n .9 9 oO iN a 5 r g = a 6 s t i . U :4 a i e f t bG tc 3 aR l . : a 4 2 N = I 9 l 2 T R l C 0 0I 6 u 0 y I N f oO = S 2 m 2 8 s, d H 8cF 6 0 io be g 46 . c D K = 0 =e 0f n b b A4 E H r 1 1 e d= 4 . L T d 1 0 Id 2 G H8 d H 0 d 6 e b 3 3 H I0 P 8 e , 1 5 y C e0 A 8 e 7 C d 8 I3 G 9 6L D : O 4 6 2 , b I0 I A 3 7 R s 8 U - 2 4 t 5 9 I : 7 R = 7 0 2 S f 6 0 H a 2 T 4 9 D4 4 7 c 7 O - e5 K 7 4 7 0 6 l1 AF 6 8 h b 7 2 e 3 7 T i ' 26 D 0 ,c 8 9 H fc 4 E 0 6 , 6 a P 5 L ' 5c 5 AH c fc f0 LI a , 87 I , A e 0b o4 15 ua ed =f 2 e 1 H 6 c 5 I f 4G 5a 5 7, H 5 0 in response to a specific query, it is submitted by learned counsel for accused/applicant that till date his father has not undergone any surgery. Rather, as pointed out by learned APP, father of the accused/applicant was not even admitted in the hospital.

8. Besides, t