Interim Order 76

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: State v. Ritik Bajaj
FIR No. 455/24
PS Special Cell
14.08.2026
Present: Sh. Akhand Pratap Singh (through video
conferencing), Ld. Special PP for State.
Sh. Vikas Pahwa, learned Sr. Advocate (through
video conferencing) with Sh. Prabhan Ralli and Sh.
Samraat Saxena, learned counsel for applicant /
accused.
SI Vipin Malik on behalf of Inspector Nishant
Dahiya.
This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023 moved on behalf of applicant / accused Ritik Bajaj seeking
extension of interim bail for 12 weeks, which was granted vide
order dated 17.07.2026.
Reply has been filed. Copy already supplied.
Arguments heard on bail application.
Put up at 04.00 p.m. for order.
(KULDEEP NARAYAN)
Special Judge(NDPS),
Central, THC, Delhi/14.08.2026
At 04.00 p.m.
ORDER
Present: None for State.
Sh. Samraat Saxena and Ms. Priyal Jain (through
video conferencing), learned counsel for applicant /
accused.
This is an application under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023 moved on behalf of applicant / accused Ritik Bajaj seeking
extension of interim bail for 12 weeks, which was granted vide
order dated 17.07.2026.
-- 1 of 5 --
2. During arguments, learned Sr. Advocate submitted
that applicant / accused’s wife continues to be critical and is under
constant supervision of an Orthopedic doctor of “Max Health
Care” who made home visit twice on 30.07.2026 and 07.08.2026,
who also recorded that she is unable to move due to severe back
pain. In the prescription dated 07.08.2026, the doctor concerned
advised complete bed test and requirement of family member /
attendant. Further, mother-in-law of the accused continues to
undergo chemotherapy for treatment of 3rd stage Ovarian Cancer
and has been making regular visit to hospital and thus father-in-
law is required to devote his complete time and attention towards
her care. There is no other person to take care of wife of the
applicant / accused and being husband, presence of the applicant /
accused is required for post operative care of his wife who has
been advised complete bed rest for three months.
3. Further, during the period of about 130 days, when
the accused remained on bail, there has been no allegations of any
tampering of evidence or influencing any witnesses or interfering
with the investigation in any manner.
4. Ld. Spl. PP for the State, while vehemently opposing
the bail application, submitted that the present case pertains to an
international drug trafficking conspiracy orchestrated by a
syndicate and in view of the gravity and seriousness of the
offences alleged against the applicant / accused his prolonged
continuation on interim bail is neither justified nor warranted.
5. Further, the conduct of the applicant / accused
demonstrates the clear tendency to seek repeated extensions of the
interim bail thereby converting a temporary and exceptional relief
into an arrangement of continued liberty. The applicant / accused
-- 2 of 5 --
is effectively attempting to perpetuate the interim bail beyond its
intended and limited purposes. Further, the requirement of post-
operative care of the applicant / accused’s wife can adequately be
arranged through professional nursing attendants, trained care
giver, home health care services and other available medical
support. Further, the medical condition of applicant / accused’s
mother-in-law does not furnish any justifiable ground for further
extension of interim bail and the alleged medical condition of a
family member by itself cannot be a ground for prolonged
extension of interim bail in case involving grave offences under
the NDPS Act.
6. Having heard the submissions and perused the
record, I find substance in the contentions of learned Spl. PP for
the State.
7. As per record, vide order dated 13.03.2026, the
applicant / accused was granted interim bail for a period of 21
days on the ground of spinal surgery of his wife scheduled for
17.03.2026, however, the surgery could not be conducted on the
said day. The interim bail of the applicant / accused was extended
vide orders dated 27.04.2026, 16.05.2026 by learned predecessor,
vide order dated 01.07.2026 by the Hon’ble High Court and vide
orders dated 06.07.2026, 11.07.2026, 14.07.2026 and 17.07.2026
by the learned predecessor which is going to expire today.
8. As per the discharge summary, wife of the applicant /
accused was admitted on 24.07.2026 and after surgical spinal de-
compression procedure, she was discharged on the same day i.e.
24.07.2026. She was advised complete bed rest for three months.
Subsequently, she also visited hospital on 07.08.2026 due to pain
and severe weakness and after re-evaluation, was advised
-- 3 of 5 --
complete bed rest. The doctor concerned also suggested the
requirement of family attendant.
9. It suffices to say that the requirement of a family
member to attend the wife of the applicant / accused’s does not
mean that only and only the applicant / accused’s presence is
required.
10. Needless to say, post-operative care can be arranged
through professional nursing attendants and trained care givers
who may be employed to render care and assistance round the
clock. Applicant / accused does not appear to be financially
constrained to afford the same. It be also noted that need for post-
operative care, by no stretch of imagination can be construed as
an exceptional circumstance warranting the extension / grant of
interim bail in a case pertaining to commercial quantity of
contraband under the NDPS Act by an international drug cartel, as
alleged by the prosecution.
11. Even otherwise, after discharge on 24.07.2026,
ample time was available to the applicant / accused to make
necessary arrangements for post-operative care and assistance for
his wife which was also observed vide order dated 16.05.2026.
12. It could not be explained what prevented the
applicant / accused from making any such arrangement despite
availability of more than sufficient time at his disposal.
13. It is also worthy to note that as per the affidavit filed
by the applicant / accused, after arrest on 23.12.2025, total period
of custody undergone by him so far is 103 days, whereas he has
spent about 130 days on interim bail.
14. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do
not find any merit in the application under consideration for
-- 4 of 5 --
extending the interim bail for 12 weeks. The request is declined.
15. However, the interim bail which is going to expire
today is extended for three days only to enable the accused to
make necessary arrangement to take care of post-operative care of
his wife, if not done earlier.
16. Accused is directed to surrender before the Jail
Superintendent concerned, Tihar Jail on 17.08.2026 by 05.00 p.m
17. The application is accordingly disposed off.
18. Jail Superintendent will file a report in this regard on
18.08.2026.
19. Copy of the order be given dasti to the learned
counsel for applicant/ accused as well as IO concerned.
20. Another copy be sent to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for information.
(KULDEEP NARAYAN)
Special Judge(NDPS),
Central,THC, Delhi/14.08.2026
-- 5 of 5 --