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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6536

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Girish Kathpalia, J
SANJAY LAKRA – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) – Respondent
BAIL APPLN.-1639/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prashant Yadav
For the Respondents: Amit Ahlawat, Vivek Tyagi, Satish Rana, Vikrant Singh

Interim bail denied where medical board report contradicts applicant's claim of need for hospitalization for wife's depression and applicant has multiple pending serious criminal cases.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - Sections 3 and 4 - Interim Bail - Ground of wife's illness - Medical board report vs. prescription - Reliability of medical evidence - Court held that medical board report showing moderate depression without need for hospitalization outweighs prescription lacking patient name and recommending admission only for diagnostic clarification - Accused involved in 16 other similar serious cases - Bail denied. (Para 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The applicant, an accused in FIR No.78/2018 under MCOC Act, sought interim bail on the ground that his wife was suffering from severe depression requiring hospitalization and his round-the-clock presence. He relied on a prescription from a psychiatrist recommending admission for diagnostic clarification. The prosecution opposed, citing a report from a Medical Board constituted at IHBAS which, after examining the wife, found moderate depression with no high risk behaviour, no need for hospitalization, but only regular follow-up. The trial court had earlier dismissed the bail application based on that report.

Findings of Court:
The prescription did not even bear the patient's name and recommended admission only for diagnostic clarification. The Medical Board report was more reliable and clearly stated the wife did not require hospitalization. Additionally, the applicant was involved in 16 more cases of similar serious nature, making grant of interim bail unsafe. The court found no reason to grant interim bail.

Issues: Whether interim bail should be granted on medical ground of wife's illness in light of conflicting medical evidence and the applicant's criminal antecedents.

Ratio Decidendi: Interim bail on medical ground requires credible evidence of need for hospitalization; a medical board report is authoritative and its findings must be given due weight. The applicant's involvement in multiple serious cases further militates against grant of bail. Result : Application dismissed.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The accused/applicant seeks interim bail in FIR No.78/2018 of PS Special Cell for offence under Section 3 & 4 MCOC Act. The interim bail is sought by the accused/applicant on the ground of illness of his wife.

2. Learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that wife of the accused/applicant is suffering with severe depression to the extent that she has to be hospitalized and for that purpose, round the clock presence of the accused/applicant with her is required. In this regard, learned counsel for accused/applicant places reliance on prescription of Dr. Anurag Jhanjee from Department of Psychiatry of Maulana Azad Medical College.

3. Learned APP for State assisted by IO/ACP Vivek Tyagi strongly opposes the bail application, taking me through records including order dated 20.03.2026 of the learned trial court whereby on the basis of report submitted by Medical Board constituted at IHBAS to examine wife of the accused/applicant, interim bail application was dismissed. It is submitted that the accused/applicant is involved in 16 more cases of similar serious nature and grant of interim bail to the accused/applicant would not be safe.

4. So far as the prescription relied upon by the learned counsel for accused/applicant is concerned, the same (page 61 of paperbook) does not even bear name of the patient and even otherwise, the admission recommended in that prescription is specifically for diagnostic clarification. But much more reliable in this regard is the report of the Medical Board constituted at IHBAS, which after examining the wife of the accused/applicant submitted report in sealed covered before the trial court. The learned trial court in order dated 20.03.2026 recorded observations of the said report of the Medical Board that the patient is a case of moderate depression with no high risk behaviours; that she requires regular follow up in psychiatry department of her choice; and that she does not require hospitalization.

5. Going by the aforesaid, I do not find it a fit case to grant interim bail to the accused/applicant. The application is dismissed.

6. Accompanying application also stands disposed of.

7. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for being informed to the accused/applicant.

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