Allowed¶11

Amit Gulia v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Delhi HC3 Feb 2026BAIL APPLN./228/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim bail; medical grounds; MCOC Act S.3(1)/3(4); FIR 163/2019 PS Special Cell; knee replacement surgery elective vs emergency; aged/ailing parent care; undertrial incarceration not punitive; 27 criminal cases including murder; discharge orders; parity with co-accused urged; personal bond Rs. 50,000 with one surety; surrender date; no-contact-with-witnesses condition; Delhi High Court; Justice Girish Kathpalia; 03.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Interim bail granted from 11.02.2026 to 04.03.2026 subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court; applicant to surrender before the trial court positively on 05.03.2026 at 10:30am; direction not to contact any prosecution witness, failing which the State may move an appropriate application even before 04.03.2026.

Amit Gulia Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the undertrial applicant (in custody over five years in FIR No. 163/2019, PS Special Cell, under Sections 3(1)/3(4) MCOC Act) should be granted six weeks' interim bail on the ground that his mother has to undergo knee replacement surgery, despite the surgery being elective and other relatives being available to care for her. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

The non-emergency/elective character of the mother's knee transplant surgery does not mean a person requiring it can afford to defer the surgery endlessly; it is the patient who knows the extent of pain and the consequential need for earliest surgery.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Given the trial is not likely to conclude for at least three years, the applicant's mother cannot be expected to keep suffering in the wait for knee transplant for such a long time.

¶7

Key takeaways

Availability of other relatives to care for the mother is irrelevant; the issue must be examined from the paradigm of the accused who desires to be by his mother's side during her hospitalization, surgery and recuperation; the applicant has already suffered incarceration of more than five years, and this is a case of the mother's surgery, not of some distant relative's marriage or illness.ratio¶8
Undertrial incarceration has a purpose, and that purpose can certainly not be to punish the accused for an offence whose guilt is yet to be proved in trial.ratio¶9
Pendency of the 27 cases should not, for present purposes, stand in the way of permitting the accused to be by his mother's side; the Court found substance in counsel's suspicion regarding the truthfulness of those 27 cases (applicant having been discharged in three murder cases), with the cautious rider that the exact view on truthfulness will be possible only after completion of trial.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Appln. 228/2026, decided 03.02.2026 (Justice Girish Kathpalia): An undertrial in custody for over five and a half years in FIR No. 163/2019, PS Special Cell (Sections 3(1)/3(4), MCOC Act), sought six weeks' interim bail as his mother was scheduled for knee replacement surgery (admission 12.02.2026, surgery 13.02.2026, MAX Hospital, Dwarka). The State opposed on three grounds: the surgery was elective per MAX Hospital certificate, relatives were available to care for the mother, and the applicant was allegedly involved in 27 serious cases including three pending murder trials. Held: (i) elective/non-emergency classification does not justify endless deferral of surgery, especially where the trial is unlikely to conclude for at least three years; (ii) availability of other relatives does not deny a son the opportunity to be by his mother's side during hospitalization, surgery and recuperation; (iii) undertrial incarceration is not meant to punish ahead of proof of guilt, and pendency of the 27 cases should not stand in the way of interim liberty — particularly since the applicant stood discharged in the three murder cases and the IO did not know if the State had challenged those discharge orders (with a cautious rider that truthfulness of the cases will be tested only after trial). Interim bail granted for 11.02.2026 to 04.03.2026 on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount; surrender fixed for 05.03.2026 at 10:30am; applicant barred from contacting prosecution witnesses.

¶1

$~4

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 03.02.2026

¶4

- BAIL APPLN. 228/2026

¶5

AMIT GULIA .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Jitendra Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hemant Gulati and Mr. Shobit Dimri, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent

¶9

Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State with ACP Rahul Kumar Singh and Inspector Sundeep Yadav, PS Special Cell.

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA

¶11

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

¶12

The accused/applicant seeks interim bail for a period of six weeks in case FIR No. 163/2019 of PS Special Cell for offence under Section 3(1) and 3(4) of MCOC Act.

¶13

Status report in terms with last order was not filed. It has been repeatedly observed in almost all cases that status reports are not filed by the State in time. However, keeping in mind the issue of liberty, that too, an interim liberty on medical grounds, I find no reason to adjourn the matter.

¶14

BAIL APPLN. 228/2026

¶15

Page 1 of 5 pages

¶16

GIRISH KATHPALIA Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afec45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d15570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff801e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.02.03 17:43:37 -08'00'

¶17

Signature Not Verified

¶18

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 3.02.2026 17:49:09

¶19

Learned APP for State has shown me the relevant documents and the same have been shared with the learned senior counsel for accused/applicant as well.

¶20

Broadly speaking, the accused/applicant seeks six weeks interim bail on the ground that his mother has to undergo knee replacement surgery.

¶21

Learned APP for State, assisted by IO/Inspector Sundeep Yadav, strongly opposes the interim bail application on three grounds. Firstly, it is contended on the basis of a certificate issued by MAX Hospital that the surgery for knee transplant is not an emergency but elective surgery, which can be performed even later. Secondly, learned APP for State has referred to statement of mother of the accused/applicant detailing out the number of relatives available, who can take care of mother of the accused/applicant at the time of surgery. Thirdly, it is contended that the accused/applicant is involved in as many as 27 cases of serious nature including three pending trial murder cases out of which one case is of double murder.

¶22

On the other hand, learned senior counsel for accused/applicant has taken me through record, contending that none of the arguments advanced on behalf of State holds merit when it comes to consideration of interim bail. Learned senior counsel for accused/applicant has also referred to the interim bail granted to two of the co-accused persons, who also are involved in number of cases and who duly surrendered upon expiry of interim bail period. Further, learned senior counsel for accused/applicant submits that out of those 27 cases, three cases were for murder and in all those three

¶23

BAIL APPLN. 228/2026

¶24

Page 2 of 5 pages

¶25

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 3.02.2026 17:49:09

¶28

cases, the accused/applicant got discharged, which clearly shows fabrication on the part of police in order to ensure that the accused/applicant remains behind the bars. It is also submitted by learned senior counsel that the accused/applicant is in jail for past five and half years, so now he deserves at least some relief in the circumstances of the present nature.

¶29

So far as the argument of State that surgery to be performed on mother of the accused/applicant is not an emergency surgery, this in itself does not mean that a person requiring knee transplant can afford to defer the surgery endlessly. It is such patient only who knows the extent of pain and consequential need for knee transplant surgery at the earliest, though of course, it is not an emergent surgery. Further, going by the submission of learned prosecutor, the trial in the present case is not likely to conclude in next at least three years. Mother of the accused/applicant cannot be expected to keep suffering in the wait for knee transplant for such a long time.

¶30

As regards the availability of relatives to take care of mother of the accused/applicant, the issue has to be examined from a different paradigm. Merely because mother has other relatives to take care does not mean that son be denied an opportunity to be by her side. The issue has to be examined from paradigm of the accused/applicant, who desires to be by the side of his mother during the period of her hospitalization, surgery and recuperation. The accused/applicant has already suffered incarceration for more than five years. The State is expected to handle with even hardened criminals, what to say of undertrials in custody with soft hands at times depending upon the

¶31

BAIL APPLN. 228/2026

¶32

Page 3 of 5 pages

¶33

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 3.02.2026 17:49:09

¶36

circumstances. It is not a case of some distant relative on whose marriage or illness the accused/applicant seeks interim liberty. It is the case of mother of the accused/applicant, who has to undergo surgery.

¶37

Coming to the argument of involvement of the accused/applicant in as many as 27 cases, argument of the State is that he is a hardened criminal. On this aspect, one has to understand that the incarceration being undergone by the accused/applicant is undertrial incarceration, which has certain purpose. And that purpose can certainly be not to punish him for an offence, guilt wherefor is yet to be proved in trial. Further as mentioned above, in three murder cases, the accused/applicant was discharged and the investigating officer expresses ignorance if the State challenged those orders of discharge. It is quite unfortunate that the State has come forward so enthusiastically to oppose liberty even in such circumstances, without complete information. I find substance in the suspicion raised by learned senior counsel for the accused/applicant as regards truthfulness of those 27 cases, though as a matter of cautious rider, I must also clarify that exact view on truthfulness will be possible only after completion of trial of those cases. For present purposes, pendency of those cases should not stand in the way to permit the accused/applicant to be by the side of his mother at the time of her illness.

¶38

It is informed by learned senior counsel for accused/applicant that mother of the accused/applicant is now scheduled to undergo surgery for knee transplant on 13.02.2026 for which she has to get herself admitted on 12.02.2026 in MAX Hospital, Dwarka.

¶39

BAIL APPLN. 228/2026

¶40

Page 4 of 5 pages

¶41

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 3.02.2026 17:49:09

¶44

The bail application is allowed and the accused/applicant is directed to be released on interim bail for a period from 11.02.2026 to 04.03.2026 subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court, so that he may ensure appropriate medical treatment for his mother. The accused/applicant shall surrender before the trial court positively on 05.03.2026 at 10:30am.

¶45

The accused/applicant is directed not to contact any of the prosecution witnesses in any manner whatsoever, failing which the State may file appropriate application even prior to 04.03.2026.

¶46

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

¶47

Digitally signed by GIRISH KATHPALIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF DELHI, 2.5.4.20=8401dd889b27a77b2f65ffffe4afe GIRISH c45569af3962c6fb4835d435f97626cacca, ou=HIGH COURT OF DELHI,CID - 7047638, postalCode=110003, st=Delhi, serialNumber=d3e86796451ec45c07b5d1 KATHPALIA 5570996b40f80cbd2eee60402c487965ff8 01e26fa, cn=GIRISH KATHPALIA Date: 2026.02.03 17:42:40 -08'00'

¶48

GIRISH KATHPALIA (JUDGE)

¶49

FEBRUARY 03, 2026/ as

¶50

BAIL APPLN. 228/2026

¶51

Page 5 of 5 pages

¶52

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETU N NAIR Signing Da te:0 3.02.2026 17:49:09

Amit Gulia v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Gulia v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Sharma Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Bhaskar Yadav Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Dr. Lokesh Gaur Vs the State (Govt. of N.C.T.) Delhi & Ors.

Dharam Raj Yadav Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr. & Ors.

Shaheed Vs the State of NCT of Delhi

Prayag Abott Vs Customs