Delhi High Court
BAIL APPLN./3354/2026 of SOMBIR RATHEE Vs GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI on 14 August 2026
3354/2026 Page 1 of 3 $~95 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010380342026 + BAIL APPLN. 3354/2026 & CRL.M.A. 25090/2026 SOMBIR RATHEE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Chetanya Puri, Mr. Jai Vridhan & Mr. Rishabh Jain, Advocates. Versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
$~95
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010380342026
+
BAIL APPLN. 3354/2026 & CRL.M.A. 25090/2026
SOMBIR RATHEE
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr.
Chetanya
Puri,
Mr.
Jai
Vridhan
&
Mr.
Rishabh
Jain,
Advocates.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
.....Respondent
Through:
Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP
SI Omkant Yadav, PS Paharganj,
Delhi.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 14.08.2026
1. This application has been filed by the petitioner seeking extension of interim bail granted to him vide orders dated 20.07.2026 and 04.08.2026 in connection with FIR No. 692/2024, dated 11.12.2024, registered at Police Station Pahar Ganj, District Central, Delhi, under Sections 376/406/420/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The petitioner’s application [BAIL APPLN. 2598/2026] for interim bail was allowed by order dated 20.07.2026, for the period 21.07.2026 till 04.08.2026, in order to enable the petitioner to attend to his mother at the time of her knee surgery.
3. He thereafter approached this Court seeking extension of the interim bail [BAIL APPLN. 3121/2026]. The Court noted that the petitioner’s mother was required to attend post-surgery follow up on 10.08.2026, and extended the interim bail until 05:00PM today, i.e. 14.08.2026. It was specifically noted in the said order as follows: “7. It is expected that the petitioner will also utilize this period to make alternative arrangements for the care of his mother, if necessary.”
4. The present application has now been filed seeking a further extension, on the ground that his mother is still unable to walk properly and requires physiotherapy for at least a further period of four to six weeks.
5. Mr. Chetanya Puri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is required to be available for medical consultation and treatment.
6. The medical documents annexed to the petition show that the petitioner’s mother attended the hospital for post-surgery consultation on 10.08.2026, when her sutures were removed, and she was prescribed physiotherapy for the period of one month.
7. I am of the view that the facts of the case and the record does not disclose an urgent or unexpected development which requires further extension of interim bail. The petitioner has already been on interim bail for a period of over three weeks for the knee surgery of his mother. The surgery has taken place, and post-surgery follow-ups have also occurred, in which her sutures have also been removed. It appears, what is now required is physiotherapy and rehabilitation, which is for a longer duration. Further, the order dated 04.08.2026 specifically recorded that the petitioner was expected to utilize the extension period to make alternative arrangements for care of his mother.
8. In view of the above, further extension of bail on this ground is unjustified.
9. The application is therefore dismissed. PRATEEK JALAN, J AUGUST 14, 2026 ‘pv’/AD/