Allowed

Mohd. Furkan v. State NCT of Dlehi

Delhi HC6 Aug 2025BAIL APPLN./2781/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought interim bail for 30 days citing his father's dire medical condition requiring surgery. Court allowed bail for two weeks on humanitarian grounds, emphasizing lack of sufficient family support locally.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on interim bail for two weeks by furnishing a bond of INR 25,000/- with one surety, subject to specific reporting and non-movement conditions.

Mohd. Furkan Vs State NCT of Dlehi — Bail and Remand | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~1

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 2781/2025

¶4

MOHD. FURKAN .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Subhash Chandra Sagar, Advocate

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE NCT OF DLEHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, APP for the State

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

O R D E R % 06.08.2025

¶10

The present application filed under Section 483 read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeks grant of interim bail for a period of 30 days on account of medical condition of his father who is suffering from cancer and is undergoing treatment.

¶11

As per the nominal roll, the Applicant has been in custody for 2 months and 4 days in relation to FIR No. 193/2025 under Sections 110/115(2)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 registered at P.S. I.P. Estate.

¶12

The State has filed a status report verifying the medical records of the Applicant’s father, a copy of which is handed over across the board and taken on record. The medical record provided by the Applicant confirms that the Applicant’s father was admitted to Sri Balaji Action Medical Institute, a

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/08/2025 at 12:30:03

¶15

multi-specialty hospital, on 16^th July, 2025, with a diagnosis of Renal Cell Carcinoma. It is indicated that surgery might be required for this condition. However, the patient was discharged on 20^th July, 2025, and was subsequently admitted to another hospital the same day, where he remained under treatment until 31^st July, 2025. Upon discharge, it was advised that the patient be referred to a higher medical centre for better treatment facilities.

¶16

Despite the above, the State opposes the application pointing out that the discharge summary indicates that the symptoms of the patient were gradually improving. It is further urged that no surgery was scheduled during either of the stays in the hospitals. Moreover, it is pointed out that the Applicant has other family members, who are capable of taking care of the needs of the Applicant’s father. Additionally, it is pointed out that the Applicant also has a previous involvement in FIR No. 323/2023 under Sections 323 and 354 of the IPC.

¶17

Counsel for the Applicant submits that the Applicant’s elder brother is presently on a pilgrimage, and only the Applicant’s sister and ailing mother are available to attend to the medical and personal needs of their father. It is contended that, in the given circumstances, the presence of the Applicant is essential to make necessary arrangements for his father’s proposed surgery and organising necessary finances.

¶18

The Court has considered the aforenoted contentions. The medical records clearly indicate that the Applicant’s father is suffering from a lifethreatening condition. The Applicant’s elder brother is apparently on a pilgrimage and his sister and mother are unable to adequately attend to their father’s medical and personal needs. In view of the above, purely on humanitarian grounds, the application is allowed and the Applicant is

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/08/2025 at 12:30:03

¶21

directed to be released on interim bail for a period of two weeks, on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of INR 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court/ Duty MM on the following conditions:

¶22

(a) The Applicant shall, under no circumstance, leave the NCT of Delhi, without permission of the Trial Court, during the period of his release on interim bail;

¶23

(b) The Applicant shall, during the period of his release, provide the address where he would be residing, and shall not change the address without informing the concerned IO/ SHO;

¶24

(c) The Applicant shall, upon his release, give his mobile number to the concerned IO/SHO and shall keep his mobile phone switched on at all times; (d) The Applicant shall not commit any offence during the period of his release on interim bail;

¶25

(e) The Applicant shall surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent, on or before the expiry of 2 weeks from the date of release. 7. In view of the above, the present application is disposed of.

¶26

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶27

AUGUST 6, 2025/ab

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/08/2025 at 12:30:03

Mohd. Furkan v. State NCT of Dlehi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Furkan v. State NCT of Dlehi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puneet Kumar Aggarwal Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anothers

Shri Pradeep Kumar & Ors. Vs State & Anr.

Deepak & Ors. Vs the State ( Gnctd) and Ors. & Anr.

Shalini Kakkar Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

S.C. Luthra Vs Ajay Sharma

Intec Capital Ltd. Vs Mohanraj Rikhabdas Sand