IA ORDER

1. In view of the point of difference of opinion amongst the brother Judges (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ilesh J. Vora and Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt), the Hon’ble Acting Chief Justice has assigned the present matter before this Bench. The Bench was specially formed, since extreme urgency is cited by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant- convict as the period of interim bail granted by the Supreme Court to the applicant is expiring on 31.03.2025.

2. The present application filed under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for temporary bail, pending appeal, for a period of six months and to extend the bail / temporary bail granted to the applicant, which is in operation till 31.03.2025. The applicant is a convict for life imprisonment for the offence under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC). The applicant is convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar in Sessions Case No.34 of 2014 by judgment and order dated 31.03.2023. He has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(c) and 377 of the IPC.

3. By the order of even date i.e. dated 28.03.2025 passed in the present application filed by the applicant-convict seeking temporary bail for a period of six months in connection with Criminal Appeal No.607 of 2023, which is pending before this Court, the point of difference of opinion is framed as under : -

“Whether a period of temporary bail granted to the applicant by the Hon’ble Apex Court from 07.01.2025 to 31.03.2025 is properly utilised by the applicant and accordingly, has he shown any real medical need which requires consideration of temporary bail for further 60 days, that too for ayurvedic treatment ?”

4. Thus, the point of difference of opinion stems out of the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.15945 of 2024, whereby and wherein the Supreme Court has granted bail to the applicant on medical ground till 31.03.2025. The Supreme Court has not delved into the merits of the matter and taking cognizance of the medical condition of the applicant, he has been granted bail till 31.03.2025 with liberty reserved in his favour to approach the High Court in case of further need.

5. The learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have premised their submissions only on one word “need” as incorporated by the Supreme Court in the order dated 07.01.2025. The view expressed by brother Justice Ilesh J. Vora in the order dated 28.03.2025 finds favour with the applicant and he has been granted interim bail for a period of three months, whereas brother Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt has differed from the opinion by recording that the OPD case papers, on which the applicant has placed heavily reliance, do not in any manner suggest that there is any “need” or valid reason for granting / extending temporary bail to the applicant on the “so-called medical ground”. It is further recorded that it appears that the applicant is only interested to extend the period of liberty granted for temporary period without properly utilizing the time period granted by the Apex Court. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Faraz Khan Vs. State of GNCT of Delhi, reported in MANU/DE/ 3134/2023 and also on the order of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the case of Kalu Ram Vs. J & K decided on 25.08.2020 in Bail Application No.194 of 2019.

6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta assisted by learned advocate Mr.Ashish M.Dagli, appearing for the applicant, at the outset, has pointed out the favorable view and has submitted that the medical condition of the applicant remains precarious as he is suffering from various ailments, as referred in the order and there is a need for extending / granting temporary bail. He has referred to the report of All India Institute of Medical Science, Jodhpur (AIIMS) dated 02.01.2024, along with other medi