Interim Bail Period Excluded From Computation Of Time Available For Police Custody To Be Sought U/S. 187(2) Of BNSS: Delhi High Court

The High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking interim bail in connection with an FIR registered under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act, 1959(Arms Act).

The Single Bench of Justice Prateek Jalan held, “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, for eight weeks, as granted by the order dated 18.12.2025 of the Sessions Court. 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.”

Advocate Alok represented the Petitioner while Additional Public Prosecutor Hitesh Vali represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The FIR related to allegations against the applicant in respect of the murder of one Muskan, who was shot inside her residence after she repeatedly refused to marry him despite his persistent pressure and threats. It was further alleged that after the shooting, the applicant also shot himself inside the same premises. The applicant has been in judicial custody in connection with the said FIR since November 21, 2025. The grounds on which interim bail was sought related to his medical condition, including a gunshot injury on his chest and pulmonary tuberculosis, resulting in chronic pain, restricted mobility and related complications.

The Sessions Court granted interim bail to the applicant for a period of eight weeks. This interim order has been continued from time to time.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that while Section 167 of CrPC permits remand for a period of 15 days, Section 187 of BNSS specifically speaks of remand for a term not exceeding 15 days, “in the whole, or in parts”. As per the Bench, the aforesaid period must be within the first 40 days or 60 days, out of the detention period of 60 days or 90 days, respectively, depending upon the severity of the offence. Upon expiry of the aforesaid period of 60 days or 90 days, as the case may be, the accused becomes eligible for release on default/statutory bail.

Reference was made to the judgment in Fisal PJ (Supra) wherein it has been observed 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.

The Bench 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.”

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench held that the application of the IO for cancellation/modification of the interim bail granted to the applicant, and the observations of the Sessions Court were misconceived. The Bench noted that the applicant was arrested on November 21, 2025 and appeared to have been remanded to judicial custody on November 22, 2205. He was released on interim bail on December 18, 2025, i.e. after 28 days in custody. As the FIR in the present case was under Section 107(1) of BNS, which is punishable with life imprisonment or death, the Bench stated that the available period during which he can be remanded to police custody of 15 days (whether in one stretch or in shorter tranches) is the first 60 days of custody.

“Even after expiry of his interim bail of eight weeks, as originally granted, there would thus be a period of 32 days still available, during which police custody could be sought”, it mentioned.

As per the Bench, the Sessions Court had also erred in proceeding to restrict the period of bail already granted to the applicant, on a re-assessment of his medical condition. Considering that the medical condition of the accused had shown some improvement, and he was ambulatory, the Bench held that it was insufficient to revoke the liberty which had already been afforded to him. “The very purpose of granting bail on medical grounds is to give the accused an opportunity of recovery. There was also no allegation of misuse of liberty, or of the initial order of bail having been secured on the basis of any misrepresentation”, it stated while allowing the Petition.

The Bench thus directed the applicant to remain enlarged on interim bail on medical grounds for the period of eight weeks.

Cause Title: Neeraj Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:1125)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Alok, Smriti Walia, Dhananjay Mittal, Shivam, Aanchal Budhiraja, Mayank Deswal, Arjan Verma

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Hitesh Vali, Sr. Advocate [Amicus Curiae] Dayan Krishnan, Advocates Shreedhar, Sukrit Seth,Radhika Yadav, Ananya Sharma, Insp Sanjeev Kumar, PS: Punjabi Bagh

Click here to read/download Order