$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010025112026 + BAIL APPLN. 355/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1595/2026 SWARNALI GHOSH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Sanya Kumar (DHCLSC) with Mr. Harsh Jain and Mr. Chiranjeev Singh Marwaha, Advs. versus THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for the State. Insp. Karmveer Singh, PS: Kalkaji. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 17.09.2026 1. The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with the FIR No. 386/2022 for the offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC] registered at police station Kalkaji, New Delhi. 2. Ms. Sanya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that the applicant is suffering from gall blader stone and CBD stone. She has been advised to undergo surgery, which requires constant medical assistance and due care. The applicant, being a female and suffering from medical ailments, has already suffered more than four years of incarceration. The trial is not likely to conclude in the near future as, out of This is a digitally signed order. 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 18/09/2026 at 10:56:20 27 cited prosecution witnesses, only 11 have been examined. She also submits that, on the date of the incident, the applicant was with her parents. There is no evidence to complete the chain of circumstances. PW-2 and PW- 3, who are the parents of the present applicant, do not corroborate the prosecution case. The recovery of the blood-stained clothes is highly doubtful. Merely on the basis of CDR call details recording the applicant's contact with co-accused Mohan Pal, the applicant's complicity cannot be established. 3. It is explained that the applicant and Mohan Pal were both in the legitimate business of medical facilitation for foreign patients and, owing to said business, they were in constant touch. 4. The submissions are strongly opposed by Ms. Shubhi Gupta, learned APP for the State. She submits that the prosecution case is supported by the disclosure statements of the applicant and co-accused Mohan Pal, the recoveries of the alleged weapon of offence and blood-stained clothes, as well as the medical, forensic and electronic evidence. 5. Learned APP submits that the prosecution case is that the applicant, in furtherance of a pre-planned act, participated in the commission of the offence along with co-accused Mohan Pal. It is accordingly submitted that the material on record prima facie connects the applicant with the commission of the offence and the applicant does not deserve the concession of regular bail. 6. The deceased's family has also been informed, and the brother of the deceased appeared. At his request, the Court appointed legal aid counsel; however, no one appeared. He himself also stopped appearing. Today also, no one appears on their behalf. This is a digitally signed order. 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 18/09/2026 at 10:56:20 7. The Supreme Court has consistently reiterated that bail is the rule and jail the exception. In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P.1, it was observed that the grant of bail must be exercised in a judicious and compassionate manner, having regard to the presumption of innocence that attaches to every accused until guilt is established in accordance with law 8. The duration of incarceration and the likely progress of the trial are also material considerations at the stage of bail, and cannot be treated as subordinate merely because the offence alleged is a grave one. In State of Kerala v. Raneef2, the Supreme Court held: “15. In deciding bail applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. Often this takes several years, and if the accused is denied bail but is ultimately acquitted, who will restore so many years of his life spent in custody?” 9. The Court is conscious that every ailment would not by itself entitle an accused to bail on medical grounds. The Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan3, has observed that bail on medical grounds must be based on credible, specific and urgent medical need, and not on general or future apprehensions. 10. The Court has considered the facts and circumstances and finds that the applicant is entitled to be released on regular bail owing to her medical condition as well as long incarceration. 11. The medical ailments of the applicant have been verified in the Status Report, the extract thereof is as under: “2. During enquiry on 01.09.2026, the medical documents of the Petitioner/ accused were sent to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital for 1 (2018) 3 SCC 22. 2 (2011) 1 SCC 784. 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 This is a digitally signed order. 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 18/09/2026 at 10:56:20 verification and clarification. The reply of the said was received on 08.09.2026 from Dr. Dhananjay Kumar, AMS (A), Surgery Department, DDU Hospital in which the following is stated:  The consultation at page 18 of photocopy is verified.  The patient as per USG report on the discharge slip placed at page 20 has gall bladder stones and CBD stone.  The patient needs consultation MCRP for CBD stones first and if present, the CBD will need to cleared first.  After this she can undergo surgery of gall bladder.  Patient will need to declared fit for surgery by department of anesthesia.  Patient will be admitted, safely post fitness and after being given the date for surgery.  Treatment in govt. hospital is free.” 12. While the aforesaid two factors are important for grant of regular bail, the Court has also considered the prima facie evidence against the applicant. However, it refrains from rendering any conclusive findings, as the same would adversely affect the rights of the parties during the pendency of the trial. 13. The applicant is, therefore, directed to be released on regular bail, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the learned Trial Court. 14. Application stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026/p/mh This is a digitally signed order. 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 18/09/2026 at 10:56:20