$~18

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ BAIL APPLN. 2039/2018 & CRL.M.A. 31078/2018

NARENDER SANSANWAL ..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Anirudh Yadav with Mr.
Gajender Singh, Advocates.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for State
with SI Ranjeev, Spl. Staff/Dwarka.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER
% 31.08.2018

Crl.M.A. 31078/2018 (exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 2039/2018
1. The petitioner is in custody in two ongoing sessions trial, one being
sessions case no. 58924/16 arising out of FIR No. 1558/15 of police station
Prashant Vihar involving offences punishable under Sections
302/201/120B/174A/34 IPC and the other sessions case no. 666/2017 arising
out of FIR No. 03/2017 of police station Dwarka, Sector-23, involving
offences punishable under Sections 365/323/506/394/397/174A/34 IPC. His
wife Daya Sansanwal is stated to be suffering from “acute cholleytitis
(acalculus)”. She is under treatment as indoor patient in Metro hospital,
Najafgarh. The petitioner had applied for interim bail in both the above
mentioned cases to attend on his ailing wife during her hospital treatment.
BAIL APPLN. 2039/2018 Page 1 of 3
2. While the petitioner has been allowed release on interim bail by the
court of sessions dealing with the first mentioned case by order dated
21.08.2018, such relief has been declined by the other sessions court by
order dated 25.08.2018 in the context of the latter case. He has approached
this Court by the present application against the above backdrop.
3. The reasons why the sessions court in the second above-mentioned
case declined the relief primarily concern the past conduct of the petitioner,
he having been declined the relief of anticipatory bail had failed to appear
before the investigating agency, this having resulted in he being declared
proclaimed offender by order dated 26.04.2017.
4. The counsel representing the petitioner midway the hearing submitted
that he would agree if the petitioner is permitted to be with his wife in the
hospital on daily basis, though in custody.
5. Given the facts and circumstances, the restricted prayer as is now
pressed deserves to be granted. In this view, it is directed that the petitioner
shall be taken in custody to the above mentioned hospital to be with his wife
during the day hours on daily basis, continuously for three days starting
tomorrow, necessary arrangements to be made by the Superintendent Jail in
this regard. For clarity, it is added that he shall be brought back to the jail
before the closing hours as per the jail manual on each day.
6. The application shall be taken up on 04.09.2018 for further directions
when the updated status report with regard to condition of wife of the
petitioner shall be submitted by the investigating officer.
7. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the date given does not suit
him. The petition shall therefore instead be taken up on 5th September, 2018.
BAIL APPLN. 2039/2018 Page 2 of 3
8. Copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
A copy of the order shall also be transmitted to the Superintendent Jail
forthwith.

R.K.GAUBA, J
AUGUST 31, 2018
srb

BAIL APPLN. 2039/2018 Page 3 of 3