’24-hour personal care required’: Rajasthan HC extends CBI-accused’s interim bail by 20 days for father’s terminal cancer

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has extended by 20 days the interim bail earlier granted to Vijay Goyal, a 69-year-old accused in a CBI corruption case, to enable him to continue caring for his 93-year-old father who is suffering from advanced metastatic prostate cancer. Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali of the Jaipur Bench pronounced the order on 23 April 2026 in a criminal miscellaneous application filed within a pending second bail application.

The Court leaned on the petitioner’s medical record and on a humanitarian view to grant the extension, while cautioning that repeated interim bail applications should not become routine substitutes for pressing the regular bail plea itself.

Vijay Goyal, son of Harish Chandra Goyal and resident of Gopal Nagar-A, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur, is an accused in FIR RC 030 2025 A 0015 registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation at its Jaipur unit. The FIR charges him under Sections 7, 7A, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — provisions that cover bribery of public servants, bribing by commercial organisations and offences relating to abetment of corruption.

His regular bail plea was rejected by the High Court on 25 February 2026. A second bail application bearing No. 4430 of 2026 was filed thereafter and is still pending. While that plea awaited hearing, Goyal moved the Court on 30 March 2026 for interim bail on the ground that his elderly father required urgent care. Justice Shrimali allowed that first application and granted interim bail for 25 days.

As the 25-day period neared its end, Goyal filed the present miscellaneous application under Section 528 read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) — provisions that save the High Court’s inherent power and allow it to pass orders to secure the ends of justice — seeking a further extension of the interim bail.

Counsel P.C. Sharma and Arpita Joshi submitted that Goyal’s 93-year-old father was in the terminal phase of prostate cancer that had spread throughout his body. A case summary issued on 15 April 2026 by a doctor at C.K. Birla Hospital was placed on record. The doctor stated: “The patient’s condition is critical with evidence of metastatic progression involving the bones, spine, and other parts of the body.” The report added that “the disease is advanced and rapidly progressing, requiring continuous supportive and palliative care,” and that, given the father’s age and co-morbidities, chemotherapy had been ruled out.

Critically for the bail plea, the doctor recorded that the patient “requires 24-hour personal care by family members and Hospital support as required.” Counsel pointed out that Goyal was his father’s only carer, that he himself was a 69-year-old senior citizen, and that he had fully complied with the conditions of the earlier interim bail. In support, they cited four rulings including Farhan Abdul Malik Khot vs. State of Maharashtra and Sukhwant Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 559.

The Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI, Pradeep Kumar, opposed the plea. He argued that the petitioner’s regular bail had already been refused and that the pending second bail plea was not being pressed on merits — instead, the accused was seeking extension of interim bail again and again. This, he said, amounted to a misuse of court process. He further contended that the petitioner’s brother, wife, and children were equally capable of caring for the ailing father. Relying on Asim Mallik vs. State of Odisha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 3036, he submitted that interim bail should not be granted in a routine manner except in exceptional circumstances.

Justice Shrimali examined the C.K. Birla Hospital summary and accepted that the medical condition described was grave. The Court noted that the doctor had expressly called for 24-hour personal care by family members, along with hospital support. Importantly, the Court observed that the CBI had not produced any documentary evidence to show that the petitioner’s brother, wife or children were actively looking after the patient.

The Court then turned to Sukhwant Singh vs. State of Punjab, in which the Supreme Court held that a court hearing a regular bail application has inherent power to grant interim bail pending final disposal. The apex court reasoned that this view flows from Article 21 of the Constitution — which protects life and personal liberty — because listing of regular bail pleas inevitably takes time, and the applicant’s reputation could be tarnished in the interim. Justice Shrimali reproduced the operative passage and held that the power to grant interim bail existed, subject to the discretion of the court concerned.

On Farhan Abdul Malik Khot, the Court noted that the Supreme Court had there repeatedly extended interim bail based on periodic medical reports showing an advanced-stage cancer of the accused’s mother. Applying the same humanitarian logic here, the Court held that the extension was justified on reasonable grounds.

The Court allowed the miscellaneous application and extended the interim bail by 20 days from the date the petitioner would otherwise have had to surrender under the 30 March 2026 order. Goyal was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court. He must maintain peace and good conduct, not repeat the offence, and surrender himself to the concerned jail on the date fixed at the end of the extended period. The remaining conditions of the 30 March 2026 order were continued. The jail superintendent was directed to inform the trial court and the High Court immediately about the petitioner’s surrender. Justice Shrimali added that the petitioner was expected to argue his pending second regular bail application when it comes up for hearing, and not to keep filing routine interim bail pleas in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

Case Details