Sumit Jalan v. State Of NCT Of Delhi
$~77 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + BAIL. APPL.756/2026 SUMIT JALAN .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Mohd. Asif with Ms. Farheen Khan, Mr. Kadir Ali, Advocates and petitioner in-person.
versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, SPP for the State with Ms. Krishna Mohan Chandel and Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
O R D E R
% 20.03.2026 The matter has been listed by way of Supplementary Listing, having been mentioned to Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
CRL.M.A. 8692/2026 Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions. The application stands disposed-of.
CRL.M.A. 8691/2026 By way of the present application filed under section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, the petitioner seeks extension of interim bail granted to him vidé order dated 20.02.2026 by a period of 60 days.
2.
Vidé order dated 20.02.2026, this court had granted to the petitioner 04 weeks of interim bail on the ground that his wife had suffered a fall in BAIL. APPl.756/2026 Page 1 of 4 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Kolkata on 13.02.2026 and her medical condition needed to be addressed.
3.
The interim bail granted runs-out tomorrow i.e. 21.03.2026. 4.
As recorded in order dated 20.02.2026, on the said date, learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that on 13.02.2026, his wife had suffered a fall while she was residing in Kolkata with her mother and their minor children, and she had been advised 04 weeks' of bedrest, after which her condition was to be reviewed. 5.
It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner wanted to bring his family back to Delhi where they would reside in the mother-in-law's house in Rohini, so that the petitioner's family could be in the same city as the petitioner (where he is lodged in judicial custody).
6.
As was noticed in order dated 20.02.2026, the petitioner had initially been granted interim bail by order dated 24.01.2026 by the learned Sessions Court inter alia on the ground that his wife had suffered burn injuries; and the petitioner had availed interim bail for a period of 03 weeks by way of the said order.
7.
Today, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that though he has returned to Delhi on 14.03.2026, his wife has now been advised further procedures including a CT Scan at a diagnostic centre in Kolkata on 26.03.2026.Learned counsel also submits, that vidé prescription dated 12.03.2026, the attending doctors at the government hospital in Kolkata have advised the wife further 04 weeks of bedrest. 8.
Issue notice.
BAIL. APPl.756/2026 Page 2 of 4 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
9.
Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, learned SPP appears for the respondent on advance copy; accepts notice; and draws attention to the prescription dated 13.02.2026 to point-out that the petitioner's wife had been advised CT Scan and other diagnostic procedures as far back on 13.02.2026, but evidently, the petitioner did not take any steps to have those tests perform on his wife at that time.
10. Mr. Singh also points-out, that for having suffered a fall as far back as on 13.02.2026, it is difficult to accept that the petitioner's wife would not have undergone an X-ray or a CT Scan, if the problem was serious.
11. Be that as it may, and upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, this court is not inclined to grant any extension of interim bail granted to the petitioner vidé order dated 20.02.2026.
12. At this stage, raising a different ground for extension of interim bail, learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that by way of abundant indulgence, the petitioner be permitted some time to follow-up on the interview call that he has received for his son's admission to Presidium School, Pitampura on 25.03.2026 or 27.03.2026 (as alternative dates), as evidenced by e-mail dated 17.03.2026, a copy of which is appended to the present application.
13. Without delving into the veracity of that e-mail, and considering that the e-mail relates to possible school admission of the petitioner's son, the petitioner is granted further time to surrender back to custody on or before 28.03.2026.
14. It is made clear that no further extension of time will be granted for the purpose.
15. Application stands disposed-of.
BAIL. APPl.756/2026 Page 3 of 4 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
BAIL. APPL.756/2026
16. Petition already stood disposed-of vidé order dated 20.02.2026. ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J MARCH 20, 2026 ds BAIL. APPl.756/2026 Page 4 of 4 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.