“Medical Care Is a Fundamental Right Even Behind Bars”: Delhi High Court Clears Brain Scan for Murder Accused

Introduction

In a significant reaffirmation of constitutional protections, the Delhi High Court has ruled that the right to proper medical treatment is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, extending even to individuals in judicial custody. Justice Girish Kathpalia, in a January 15, 2026, oral judgment, dismissed as withdrawn an interim bail application filed by murder accused Jagarnath Shah @ Lala on medical grounds but went further to direct the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to conduct urgent CT and MRI brain scans for the petitioner within one week. This decision underscores that custody does not strip away basic human rights, particularly healthcare, and highlights the judiciary's role in balancing individual rights with societal interests. The case, arising from FIR No. 297/2025 at PS Alipur under Sections 103(1) (murder) and 238(b) (tampering with evidence) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), as well as Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, involved allegations of a brutal killing followed by an attempt to destroy evidence by burning the victim's body. Represented by advocates Abhishek Rana and Vikas, the petitioner faced opposition from Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal for the State and advocates Vikram Panwar and Vijay for the complainant. This ruling not only addresses the immediate medical needs of the accused but also sets a precedent for ensuring timely healthcare access in correctional facilities.

Case Background

The underlying dispute stems from serious criminal allegations against Jagarnath Shah @ Lala, who is accused of murdering the deceased and subsequently burning the body to conceal the crime and the victim's identity. According to the prosecution, evidence includes CCTV footage, recovery of the weapon of offense, the vehicle used to transport the victim, and "last seen" circumstances linking the accused to the crime scene. The FIR was registered at Police Station Alipur under the aforementioned provisions of the BNS and Arms Act, reflecting the gravity of the charges involving illegal possession and use of firearms.

Shah, currently in judicial custody, approached the Delhi High Court via Bail Application 155/2026 and Criminal Misc. Application 1320/2026, seeking interim bail primarily on medical grounds. He reported suffering from neurological issues that were worsening due to inadequate treatment in jail. A status report submitted earlier to the Sessions Court (Annexure P-4) confirmed these concerns, noting the need for advanced diagnostics. Specifically, a CT brain scan was scheduled for January 22, 2026, and an MRI brain scan for May 11, 2026, at Safdarjung Hospital. However, the delay in the MRI—spanning over three months—was cited as exacerbating his condition, with only conservative treatment available in custody.

The timeline of the case reveals prior interactions with lower courts. Earlier, the accused had been granted interim medical bail but failed to commence treatment promptly, leading to a dismissal of his extension application by the Sessions Court on October 29, 2025. This fact was not initially disclosed in the High Court petition, prompting the prosecution's objection. Additionally, during his previous bail period, the accused's family allegedly attempted to encroach on the complainant's property, as noted in a Sessions Court order dated December 19, 2025, and a complaint (DD No. 36-A dated October 28, 2025) filed by the deceased's wife. These events added layers of complexity, raising concerns about misuse of medical bail.

The central legal questions before the High Court were twofold: whether the accused's non-disclosure of the prior Sessions Court order warranted outright rejection of his plea, and more broadly, whether an undertrial prisoner could be denied urgent medical intervention solely due to custodial status. These issues intersected with the petitioner's fundamental rights, testing the boundaries of Article 21 in the context of pretrial detention.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's counsel, Abhishek Rana and Vikas, argued that Shah's deteriorating neurological health necessitated immediate diagnostic intervention, emphasizing that jail facilities could only provide symptomatic relief. They relied on the Sessions Court's status report, which acknowledged serious neural issues requiring further examination, including the scheduled scans at Safdarjung Hospital. The counsel contended that Article 21 guarantees the right to health as an extension of the right to life, applicable equally to accused persons who are presumed innocent until proven guilty. They urged the court to grant interim bail to facilitate timely treatment, arguing that any delay could irreparably harm the petitioner's well-being without prejudice to the prosecution's case.

Opposing the plea, Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal, assisted by Investigating Officer Inspector Vivek Singh, highlighted the non-disclosure of the October 29, 2025, Sessions Court order dismissing the bail extension. They submitted that the accused had been granted prior medical bail but delayed seeking treatment until the last minute, only applying for extension on October 28, 2025—suggesting a pattern of non-compliance. The prosecution stressed the severity of the offenses, including murder and evidence tampering, and the strength of evidence like CCTV and recoveries, which made bail risky. They argued that medical grounds should not override public interest, especially given the family's alleged property encroachment during the previous bail, which undermined the petitioner's credibility.

The complainant's counsel, Vikram Panwar and Vijay, echoed these sentiments, pointing to the December 19, 2025, Sessions Court order and the widow's complaint as evidence of potential misuse of liberty. They contended that granting bail would allow further interference in the ongoing investigation and cause suffering to the victim's family, de facto complainant in the case. Collectively, the opposition emphasized that while health concerns were noted, they did not justify interim release in a heinous crime without stricter safeguards, and the concealment warranted dismissal.

During the hearing, upon the prosecution's revelation of the undisclosed order, the petitioner's counsel sought permission to withdraw the application, shifting focus from bail to alternative relief for medical care.

Legal Analysis

Justice Kathpalia's reasoning centered on the inviolability of fundamental rights under Article 21, which encompasses the right to health as an essential facet of life and personal liberty. The court acknowledged the non-disclosure as a potential ground for rejection in ordinary circumstances but distinguished this case due to the confirmed medical urgency via the status report. Drawing from established precedents, the judgment implicitly referenced landmark Supreme Court decisions like Parmanand Katara v. Union of India (1989), which mandated emergency medical aid without procedural hurdles, and State of Maharashtra v. Christian Community Welfare Council (2003), affirming prisoners' rights to healthcare equivalent to free citizens. These cases were relevant in illustrating that Article 21 protections do not diminish in custody; instead, the state bears a heightened duty to provide care, as undertrials enjoy presumptive innocence.

The court applied the principle of balancing interests, a doctrine from Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980), to weigh the accused's health needs against the prosecution's concerns and societal safety. It clarified the distinction between bail (which involves release) and in-custody medical directives (which ensure treatment without liberty), preventing any abrogation of rights without due process. Sections 103(1) and 238(b) BNS were noted for context but not as barriers to healthcare, as the ruling distinguished between criminal liability (pending trial) and humanitarian obligations.

No foreign or novel precedents were cited in the oral judgment, but the analysis aligned with Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978), where the Supreme Court held that prisoners retain all constitutional rights except those necessarily curtailed by incarceration. This framework ensured the decision did not undermine the investigation—evidenced by CCTV, weapon recovery, and last-seen theory—but prioritized non-derogable health rights. The directions to AIIMS, the IO, and jail authorities exemplify procedural safeguards, mandating priority scans and post-treatment custody, thus mitigating risks of evasion.

Key Observations

The judgment features several pivotal excerpts that encapsulate the court's humane and constitutional approach:

• "The accused/applicant, as a human being cannot be deprived of proper medical treatment, more so when he is under detention in judicial custody."

• "Right to health is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty. The applicant as on date is only an accused, not a convict… Even the most dreaded criminal and convict has fundamental right to life and liberty, and the same cannot be abrogated without following due process of law."

• "The court in such cases has to carry out balancing of interests to ensure that the detained accused person is not deprived of appropriate medical treatment and at the same time, the State and the complainant de facto also do not suffer."

These observations, delivered orally by Justice Kathpalia, emphasize empathy without compromising justice, attributing the directives to the verified neural issues in the status report.

Court's Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the interim bail application and accompanying miscellaneous application as withdrawn, per the petitioner's request, on January 15, 2026. However, to safeguard the accused's rights, it issued binding directions: the Medical Superintendent of AIIMS must conduct CT and MRI brain scans of Jagarnath Shah @ Lala on a priority basis within one week. The Investigating Officer was ordered to deliver a copy of the judgment to AIIMS by the next day and escort the accused in custody for the procedures, followed by necessary treatment either in jail or an attached hospital. A copy was also forwarded to the relevant Jail Superintendent for immediate compliance.

The implications are profound. Practically, this ensures the accused receives diagnostics without release, addressing his neurological concerns while containing flight or tampering risks. For future cases, it reinforces that medical pleas by undertrials cannot be dismissed summarily; courts must verify urgency and facilitate in-custody care, potentially reducing litigation over bail extensions. It may prompt systemic improvements in jail healthcare, aligning with Supreme Court mandates for medical boards in prisons. Broader effects include heightened scrutiny on state obligations under Article 21, discouraging delays in diagnostics like the four-month MRI wait at Safdarjung. This could influence similar petitions in high-profile cases, such as those involving figures like Yasin Malik, where the Delhi High Court previously ordered Tihar Jail to provide urgent care. Ultimately, the ruling bolsters the jurisprudence on prisoners' rights, ensuring that justice systems prioritize humanity alongside accountability, and may encourage policy reforms for integrated medical facilities in correctional settings.