The Delhi High Court has clarified that the period of interim bail given to an accused would be excluded from the time limit provided under criminal procedural law for the police to complete the custodial interrogation of an accused [Neeraj Kumar v. State NCT of Delhi]

The Court made the observation in a case where the medical bail granted to an accused was cut short by a trial court after the police raised concerns that it would eat into the time permitted for custodial interrogation.

In an order passed on February 11, Justice Prateek Jalan restored the interim bail.

The Court held that under Section 187(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) - which sets limits on how long police can keep someone in custody during an investigation - only the days an accused actually spends in jail are counted. Time spent out on interim or temporary bail is not included in this computation.

“I am in respectful agreement (with the Kerala High Court's view in Fisal PJ v. State of Kerala) that only the period of actual custody would count towards reckoning of time under Section 187(2) of BNSS,” said the Court.

The matter concerned Neeraj Kumar, who was arrested on November 21, 2025, in connection with allegations that he murdered a woman by shooting her at her residence on November 15, and then attempted to shoot himself as well. He was placed in judicial custody the next day.

On December 18, a sessions court granted him interim bail on medical grounds since he was still recovering from a gunshot wound to the chest and pulmonary tuberculosis, which limited his mobility and caused ongoing health problems.

However, the sessions court later shortened his bail period, directing him to surrender earlier.

It reasoned that his health had improved, he was able to move around and that police custody was needed to continue the investigation.

Kumar challenged this decision before the High Court.

The High Court noted that Kumar had already spent 28 days in custody before he was granted interim bail. Since the offence carries life imprisonment, the police still had 32 days left to interrogate him in custody, even after his eight-week release.

Therefore, it held that shortening of the bail period was unnecessary.

The Court added that the interim bail period would not be counted towards the permissible police custody period.

“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… Properly understood, the aforesaid period would be excluded altogether from the computation of the time available for police custody under Section 187(2) of BNSS," it said.

The Court also emphasised the purpose of granting bail on medical grounds.

“The fact that the medical condition of the accused had shown some improvement, and he was ambulatory, 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,” stated the Court.

Hence, the Court restored the original eight-week interim bail, subject to the conditions imposed by the sessions court.

Advocates Alok, Smriti Walia, Dhananjay Mittal, Shivam, Aanchal Budhiraja, Mayank Deswal and Arjan Verma appeared for Kumar (accused).

The State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Hitesh Vali.

Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan appeared as Amicus Curiae, assisted by advocates Shreedhar, Sukrit Seth, Radhika Yadav, and Ananya Sharma.

[Read Order]