Orders granting parole, temporary bail or temporary/interim suspension of sentence to a convict, pending appeal, on the ground of ill-health of a family member. Each order has been read in full on Indian Kanoon. Summaries are drawn only from the words of each order. None of these orders shows an SCC, AIR or CriLJ citation on Indian Kanoon; the neutral citation is given where available, otherwise the case number.
Supreme Court
1. Ajay Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Supreme Court of India | 15 July 2025 | Criminal Appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No. 9024 of 2025
The High Court rejected the "short term bail / parole application of the appellant, who is a convict and whose appeal before the High Court is pending", "on the ground that earlier also a short term bail was granted to the appellant in respect of his wife's treatment". By its interim order of 13.06.2025 (para 6), the Supreme Court recorded: "His presence, particularly at the time of operation and immediately thereafter, will help her to recover at the earliest", and held that "the petitioner could be granted parole for a week from 15.06.2025 till 21.06.2025". For the second surgery (para 9): "If any such application is filed before the High Court, the same shall be considered expeditiously".
Note: Daily order. Parole was granted by the interim order of 13.06.2025; for the second surgery the appellant was relegated to the High Court.
Delhi High Court
2. Angel Gupta vs State (NCT of Delhi)
Delhi High Court (DB: Vivek Chaudhary and Manoj Jain, JJ.) | 14 November 2025 | CRL.A. 623/2025; CRL.M.(BAIL) 2246/2025
Application "seeking interim suspension of sentence on the ground of surgery of her ailing mother". Conviction under "Sections 302 and 120-B" IPC; sentence of "rigorous imprisonment for life". Counsel submitted "the Appellant is the only adult female member in the household" and "The Appellant's presence is therefore indispensable". Para 8: "in order to enable the appellant to attend to and take care of her ailing mother during the forthcoming surgery and the ensuing post-operative recovery period, the sentence awarded to the appellant is hereby suspended, from the date of her release, for a period of four weeks".
3. Mukesh Sangwan vs State of NCT Delhi
Delhi High Court (Jyoti Singh, J.) | 28 March 2024 | CRL.A. 660/2022; CRL.M.(BAIL) 522/2024
Application "seeking extension of interim suspension of sentence on the ground that the nasal surgery of the Appellant's wife could not be performed". Conviction under "Sections 328/376 IPC and Section 6" of the POCSO Act. The State said "medical documents are genuine". Held: "interim suspension of sentence of the Appellant is extended for a period of two weeks from 03.04.2024".
Note: This is an extension order. The original grant dated 12.03.2024 has not been read.
4. Manish Kalra vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Delhi High Court (Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, J.) | 10 May 2022 | CRL.A. 129/2022; CRL.M.(BAIL) 459/2022
Application "for suspension of sentence on the ground of ill-health of the wife". Conviction under "Section 10 of POCSO Act". Counsel submitted "that since there is none to look after the wife of the appellant, she could not get admitted". Held: "the sentence of the appellant is suspended and he is admitted to interim bail for a period of four weeks from the date of his release".
5. Honey vs State
Delhi High Court (Yogesh Khanna, J.) | 28 May 2020 | CRL.A. 1325/2019; Crl.M.(B) No. 6334/2020
The applicant, "convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 366 IPC", sought "interim suspension of sentence for the surgery of his mother", for whom "surgery of shoulder has been advised". The surgery date "has been verified by the State". He was "admitted on interim bail for two weeks from the date of his release".
Bombay High Court
6. Pratik Vilas Gangan vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.
Bombay High Court (Madhav J. Jamdar, J.) | 17 July 2025 | 2025:BHC-AS:29608 | IA No. 4618 of 2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2021
The applicant sought "temporary bail on the ground that the Applicant's mother is required to undergo the MVR Surgery i.e. Mitral Valve Replacement Surgery". The State and the victim opposed, citing conviction under "Section 376" IPC and the POCSO Act. Para 5: "as the Applicant's mother is seriously ill ... and requires urgent surgery, case is made out for grant of temporary bail". Para 6: "the Applicant is granted temporary bail for a period of 30 days".
Madhya Pradesh High Court
7. Bhura vs State of Madhya Pradesh
MP High Court, Indore (Sanjeev S. Kalgaonkar, J.) | 5 May 2025 | CRA No. 13097 of 2024
Second application under Section 389(1) CrPC "seeking temporary suspension of sentence on the ground of illness of his wife who is suffering from a Piles and requires medical treatment". Conviction under "Section 394 of IPC and 397 of the IPC". The Court was "inclined to grant temporary suspension of sentence of imprisonment for a period of 15 days to appellant".
8. Munnawar Khan vs State of Madhya Pradesh
MP High Court, Indore (S.A. Dharmadhikari and Pranay Verma, JJ.) | 10 May 2024 | CRA No. 4996 of 2023
Application for "temporary suspension of sentence on the ground of illness of daughter of appellant who is suffering from congenital multiple growth disorder and require multiple corrective surgeries". NDPS conviction; "sentenced to undergo 15 years R.I.". The doctor's report confirmed the condition. Held: "The custodial sentence of the appellant is temporarily suspended and it is directed that the appellant be released on bail for period of three months".
9. Rehmat Ali @ Remcha vs State of Madhya Pradesh
MP High Court, Indore (Vijay Kumar Shukla and Alok Awasthi, JJ.) | 5 March 2026 | CRA No. 457 of 2024
Second application under "Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C.)" "on the ground of ailment of his wife Farzana". NDPS conviction; "12 years' RI". As per the doctor, "advise for surgery has been given". Held: "we allow the application for temporary suspension of jail sentence of the appellant from the date of his release till for a period of 01 month only".
10. Ashish vs State of Madhya Pradesh
MP High Court, Indore (Subodh Abhyankar and Pranay Verma, JJ.) | 13 November 2024 | CRA No. 2077 of 2018
Application "on the ground that the appellant's father is terminally ill and requires kidney transplantation", for which "the appellant had also agreed to donate". Conviction under "Section 302 of IPC"; "life imprisonment". Held: "the jail sentence of the appellant Ashish Gupta be temporarily suspended for a period of 30 days from the date of his release".
Rajasthan High Court
11. Mansab vs State of Rajasthan
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Manoj Kumar Garg, J.) | 12 February 2025 | 2025:RJ-JD:8626 | SOSA (Appeal) No. 183/2025
Application "on the ground of illness of his father, who is suffering from heart disease and he needs to be operated and there is no one in the family to take care of the appellant's father". The Public Prosecutor "verified the fact about the illness" but opposed. Held: "the sentence awarded to the appellant can be temporarily suspended and he deserves to be enlarged on bail for a period of thirty days".
12. Sitaram vs State of Rajasthan (with Kamal Kumar alias Sonu)
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (DB: Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Sunil Beniwal, JJ.) | 22 May 2025 | 2025:RJ-JD:24997-DB | SOSA (Appeal) Nos. 933 and 934 of 2025
Sita Ram's "father, namely Ramprasad is afflicted with Cancer and is in the terminal stage". Convictions included "Sections 302/149" IPC. "[L]ooking into the peculiar humanitarian circumstances of the case", the application was allowed "qua applicant-appellant Sita Ram only, who is the son of ailing father Ramprasad and his sentence be temporarily suspended for a period of 30 days". The grandsons' applications were dismissed "as the presence of applicant-appellant Sita Ram would be sufficient to provide necessary care".
Punjab and Haryana High Court
13. Rajbir and Anr. vs State of Haryana
Punjab and Haryana High Court | 2 August 2016 | CRM No. 21389 of 2016 in CRA No. D-281-DB of 2016
Rajbir, "undergoing life imprisonment" under "Section 302 IPC", sought "interim suspension of sentence of imprisonment for a period of two weeks on the ground that the back surgery of his wife namely Rajwanti is to be conducted". The State relied on her four "'jeths'". Held that this "may not be such a circumstance for the surgery to be conducted as expenses would have to be borne which can be done by the applicant-appellant No.1 primarily", and the sentence was suspended "for a period of two weeks from the date of his release so as to enable him to attend his wife during surgery".
Note: Names of the judges are not shown in the Indian Kanoon text.
Gujarat High Court
14. Pravinsinh Bavubha Zala vs State of Gujarat
Gujarat High Court (Sonia Gokani and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.) | 24 June 2020 | Crl. Misc. Application (Temporary Bail) No. 3 of 2020 in Criminal Appeal No. 1472 of 2019
The ground was "the knee replacement surgery of wife", during which "the presence of the applicant is sought to be requested by the wife of the applicant". Para 6: "If the same is tested negative, he shall be permitted to attend to the wife who has to undergo the knee replacement surgery." Para 7: "His release shall be for the period of 10 days from the date of his actual release". Earlier order in the same matter: 16 June 2020.
Note: Release was made subject to a negative COVID-19 test.
15. Sallaudin Gulammaudin Kazi vs State of Gujarat
Gujarat High Court (S.G. Shah, J.) | 14 August 2013 | Crl. Misc. Application (for Temporary Bail) No. 13058 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 364 of 2013
"The applicant convict prisoner has preferred this application through his wife for temporary bail on the ground of seriousness of his mother". "Mumtazbibi is practically on death-bed". The Court noted "there is no negative history, so far as the conduct and attitude of the applicant in jail is concerned" and ordered release "on temporary bail for a period of 15 days from the date of his actual release".
16. Gautam Manubhai Makwana vs State of Gujarat
Gujarat High Court (V.M. Sahai and A.G. Uraizee, JJ.) | 16 August 2013 | Crl. Misc. Application (for Temporary Bail) No. 13086 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 2008
"The convict seeks temporary bail on the ground of undergoing operation of vasectomy of his wife." Held: "the applicant-convict is ordered to be released on temporary bail for a period of 15 days from the date of actual release".
Note: "vasectomy of his wife" is as written in the order.
Checked but not included
- Relief refused: Abdul Khan @ Abdul Jalil vs State (Delhi HC, 21.10.2020); Chandra Shekhar vs State of U.P. (Allahabad HC, 25.01.2010); Firozbhai @ Piriyo Jivanbhai vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat HC, 08.02.2016); M. Rajender alias Raju vs State of Andhra Pradesh (AP HC, 19.12.1997, 1998 CriLJ 3137).
- Not on point: Bhawar Singh Kushwah (MP HC, 2018, adjourned only); Vikram and Anr. (MP HC, 2022, regular suspension on merits); Shyam Singh vs Union of India (MP HC, 2024, undertrial, not a convict).
Source: Indian Kanoon. Verify against certified copies before relying on any order.
No comments:
Post a Comment