Medical Necessity Leads to Interim Bail for Long-Term Inmate in Delhi

In a recent order reflecting the balance between judicial procedure and humanitarian concerns, the High Court of Delhi granted two weeks of interim bail to an inmate facing trial for a decade-old murder case. Justice Shalinder Kaur underscored the importance of health access for those in custody, permitting the petitioner to undergo necessary medical treatment.

Case Background

The petitioner, Maninder Sidhu, has been in judicial custody since 2014 in connection with an FIR registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar for offenses punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After 11 years of incarceration, and with his trial reaching its final stages, the petitioner sought interim bail on medical grounds, citing severe pain and restricted mobility caused by "Varicose Veins."

Previously, the court had granted custody parole for medical examination, leading to a diagnosis that necessitated a specific laser treatment procedure scheduled for May 17, 2025.

Arguments Presented

The Petitioner’s Stance: Counsel for the petitioner emphasized that treatment at the government-run Deen Dayal Upadhyay (DDU) Hospital had yielded unsatisfactory results. They argued that the specialized surgery required at Wanshika Medicare was essential for the petitioner’s recovery. The petitioner promised to surrender after two weeks, citing his past compliance when previously granted interim bail in 2016.

The State’s Response: Represented by the Learned APP, the State opposed the application, acknowledging the medical necessity but highlighting the grave nature of the allegations. The State argued that the required treatment could effectively be managed within the custody setup at DDU Hospital, urging the court to deny the relief.

Legal Analysis

The Court’s analysis relied on a nuanced appraisal of the medical reports provided by the treating physicians, which mandated both surgical intervention and a subsequent period of 10–15 days of strict bed rest. While Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 provides the framework for such applications, the court balanced the procedural sensitivity of a pending murder trial with the constitutional right of an individual to receive adequate medical care.

Justice Kaur ensured that the granting of bail did not undermine the ongoing trial, attaching rigorous conditions to the release to guarantee the petitioner’s return to custody.

Key Observations

The High Court’s reasoning was anchored by these central points:

• "The learned Doctor has opined that the petitioner is required to undergo laser treatment, which necessitates hospitalization for a period of 2-3 days."
• "Thereafter, the petitioner has been advised bed rest for a duration of 10-15 days as a post-treatment care measure to ensure full recovery."
• "The petitioner undertakes to surrender positively after the expiry of a period of two weeks."
• "Any observation made hereinabove shall not tantamount to be an expression on the merits of the case before the learned Trial Court."

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court granted the petitioner interim bail for two weeks, contingent upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of the same amount. The court imposed specific conditions, including: 1. Strict Supervision: The petitioner must remain in contact with the Investigating Officer, including mandatory twice-weekly video calls. 2. No Extraterritorial Movement: A bar on leaving the country is in place. 3. Judicial Integrity: The petitioner is strictly forbidden from tampering with evidence or influencing trial proceedings.

This decision clarifies that while long-term incarceration for grave offenses is treated with utmost severity, medical necessity for essential surgical procedures serves as a valid ground for temporary relief under the current legal framework, provided the petitioner complies with stringent oversight.