High CourtsSingle Bench

Umesh Devi vs State Nct Of Delhi

Delhi High Court · Decided on 25 March 2026 · Citation: (2026) 03 DEL CK 0576

HON’BLE JUDGES
Girish Kathpalia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 · Arms Act, 1959 — Section 25, 27
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 1189 Of 2026, Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9078, 9079 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 320 words

Girish Kathpalia, J

1.

The  accused/applicant  seeks  extension  of  interim bail  for  a period  of 40 days in case FIR No. 230/2024 of PS Mangolpuri for offence under Section 302/307/147/148/149/34 IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act.

2.

The accused/applicant was earlier granted interim bail by the Court of Sessions for a period of 40 days on the ground of examination of her children. That period has expired today according to learned counsel. In the meanwhile, the accused/applicant filed another application before the Court of Sessions for extension of interim bail on the ground that the accused/applicant is awaiting results of her children. That application for extension of interim bail was dismissed by the Court of Sessions on the ground that there is no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. Thereafter,  the  accused/applicant  has  filed  the  present  application  and  now extension of interim bail is sought on the ground that son of the accused/applicant is hospitalized.

3.

In support of this application, learned counsel for accused/applicant refers to two medical documents annexed with the application as Annexure F (colly). On the basis of those documents, learned counsel for accused/applicant submits that this is a fit case to extend the interim bail.

4.

Learned APP for State assisted by IO/Inspector Rohit strongly opposes this bail extension application on the ground that the accused/applicant is trying to evergreen the interim liberty granted to her despite seriousness of allegations against her.

5.

The  two  medical  documents  filed  with  the  application  are  only  OPD prescriptions and  the  nature  of  illness  is mentioned  as  abdominal pain  and vomiting with fever. There is no material to show any hospitalization of son of the accused/applicant. The said medical documents do not reflect any serious health issue for which the accused/applicant be granted any extension of interim bail.

6.

Therefore, the interim bail application as well as accompanying application are dismissed. The accused/applicant is directed to surrender today itself, as scheduled.