Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan, held that time spent by an accused on interim bail cannot be counted toward the maximum permissible period of police remand under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and that only actual custody periods are to be reckoned for this purpose. The case arose from a bail petition filed by an accused charged with murder and Arms Act violations, who had been granted medical interim bail by the Sessions Court, only for that period to be curtailed following an application by the Investigating Officer. The High Court set aside the curtailment and restored the original eight-week interim bail.

The petition was filed before the High Court of Delhi under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking interim bail in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Punjabi Bagh under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Also Read: Supreme Court Directs Nationwide Expansion And Reform Of Open Correctional Institutions, Constitutes High-Powered Committee To Frame Common Minimum Standards

The FIR alleged that the accused shot a woman inside her residence after she repeatedly refused to marry him and thereafter shot himself at the same premises. The accused was in judicial custody since 21.11.2025. He sought interim bail on medical grounds, citing a gunshot injury to the chest and pulmonary tuberculosis resulting in chronic pain and restricted mobility.

The Sessions Court granted interim bail for eight weeks on 18.12.2025 based on medical reports. Subsequently, on an application by the Investigating Officer seeking cancellation, the Sessions Court modified the earlier order on 14.01.2026 and directed the accused to surrender earlier than originally stipulated, observing that investigation had not commenced and police custody remand was intended.

The petitioner challenged the curtailment of interim bail, contending that the period spent on interim bail could not be counted toward the statutory timeline for police remand under Section 187 of the BNSS.

The Delhi High Court addressed the central legal question of whether the timeline under Section 187(2) of the BNSS should be reckoned on the basis of actual custody, excluding the period during which an accused is released on interim bail.

Referring to the Kerala High Court's judgment in Fisal PJ v. State of Kerala, Justice Prateek Jalan noted that it was held therein that "the period during which the accused person was released on temporary/interim bail should not be computed for the purpose of reckoning the period for statutory bail, as only the actual period of detention undergone by the accused need be counted for."

Concurring with this position, the Court stated, "I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the Kerala High Court in Fisal PJ, that only the period of actual custody would count towards reckoning of time under Section 187(2) of BNSS. Such an interpretation is, in my view, consistent with the plain language of the statute, as also the judgments referred to above."

Reliance was also placed on Gautam Navlakha v. National Investigation Agency (2022), where the Supreme Court, in the context of Section 167 of CrPC, observed that "broken periods of custody can be counted whether custody is suffered by the order of the Magistrate or superior courts, if investigation remains incomplete after the custody, whether continuous or broken periods pieced together reaches the requisite period; default bail becomes the right of the detained person."

On the Sessions Court's reasoning, the Court recorded that "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 on interim bail on medical grounds…Properly understood, the aforesaid period would be excluded altogether from the computation of the time available for police custody to be sought under Section 187(2) of BNSS."

Also Read: Allowing Petition To Remain Under Objections For Months And Then Claiming Benefit Of Earlier Filing Date 'Cannot Be Countenanced': Delhi High Court

The Court concluded, “For the reasons aforesaid, I am of view that it is appropriate to direct that the applicant would remain enlarged on interim bail on medical grounds for the period of eight weeks, as granted by the order dated 18.12.2025, and subject to the conditions mentioned therein. The petition is therefore allowed, with the above observations. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the matter.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Dr. Alok, Ms. Smriti Walia, Mr. Dhananjay Mittal, Mr. Shivam, Ms. Aanchal Budhiraja, Mr. Mayank Deswal, Mr. Arjan Verma, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Hitesh Vali, APP with Insp. Sanjeev Kumar; Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr. Shreedhar, Mr. Sukrit Seth, Ms. Radhika Yadav and Ms. Ananya Sharma, Advocates

Case Title: Neeraj Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi
Neutral Citation: 2026: DHC:1125
Case Number: Bail Appln. 190/2026
Bench: Justice Prateek Jalan