Back
Allows 30-Day for Operative's Hernia Surgery at Private Hospital
The has granted 30-day to Farhan Ansar Suse, an accused in a case under the , permitting him to undergo surgery for an umbilical hernia at a private hospital of his choice within the Delhi-NCR region. The division bench, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan, however, declined Suse’s request to travel to Mumbai for treatment, citing the alleged network he is stated to have in Padgha and neighbouring areas of Maharashtra.
The ruling, delivered on , disposed of an appeal against the ’s order of that had rejected Suse’s application on medical grounds. The High Court’s decision balances the accused’s need for specialised medical care with the stringent security concerns inherent in UAPA prosecutions, offering a notable example of how courts can craft intermediate relief without compromising .
Background of the Case
Suse was arrested in connection with FIR No. RC-29/2023/NIA/DLI registered by the NIA in . The agency has charged him under Sections 120B () and 387 () of the , alongside multiple provisions of the UAPA: Sections 13 (), 18 (), 18A (), 20 (), 38 (), and 39 ().
The principal was filed on , followed by a on . According to the NIA, Suse was part of a conspiracy involving deceased accused Saquib Nachan, who allegedly operated for in India. The agency alleged that an network was being run to raise funds for , that Suse circulated messages on behalf of the organisation, took an oath of allegiance, and collected large amounts of cash from businessmen in the Padgha area of Maharashtra. The trial is currently at the stage of arguments on charge.
Medical Grounds and Arguments
Suse sought stating that he suffers from umbilical hernia, bronchial asthma, and Type-II diabetes. He had been examined at , which advised surgery for the hernia. The appellant’s counsel submitted that the principal allegation against him concerned , and the alleged connection with remained to be established during trial. They pointed out that the alleged prime accused, Saquib Nachan, had died, and that the prosecution proposed to examine more than 500 witnesses. Suse had already undergone approximately two years and nine months of incarceration.
The NIA opposed the plea, submitting that Suse was an active member of in India and one of the chief conspirators associated with Nachan. The agency argued that the was involved in spreading ideology, taking oaths of allegiance, and raising funds. It further submitted that Suse had changed his position during proceedings—first challenging his arrest as illegal and later, after Nachan’s death, seeking pardon and expressing willingness to become an . On the medical issue, the NIA maintained that Suse was already receiving proper treatment in Delhi.
Court’s Reasoning and Conditions
The High Court deliberately refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the serious allegations against Suse. It confined itself to the question of on account of his medical condition. The court observed: “The admitted position is that the Appellant is required to undergo surgery for an umbilical hernia. He has been receiving treatment at DDU Hospital.” Noting that Suse wished to undergo surgery at a private hospital, the bench held: “The reasons for the same need not be gone into by this Court, as the Appellant, being medically unwell, cannot be prevented from undergoing treatment at a private hospital at his own expense.”
However, the court declined the request to undergo treatment in Mumbai, stating it was “not considered feasible at this stage” in view of the alleged network Suse is said to have in Padgha and neighbouring areas of Maharashtra. Instead, the bench permitted Suse to select any private hospital of his choice in Delhi/NCR, while remaining under custody.
The relief granted is specifically described as “” for 30 days. The 30-day period runs from the date of admission to the private hospital. If the treating doctor declares Suse medically fit before the expiry of the period, he must be immediately shifted back to jail. Any extension beyond the initial period will depend on medical advice.
Strict restrictions were imposed on visitors and communication. Only two immediate family members—his spouse or children—may accompany him during hospitalisation. Suse is prohibited from communicating or meeting with any other relatives, friends, or acquaintances, whether through mobile or otherwise. Most critically, he is barred from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person named in the . All treatment expenses are to be borne by Suse.
Legal Analysis and Precedential Value
The judgment does not rely on an elaborate analysis of earlier bail precedents. Instead, it adopts a fact-specific medical approach that balances several competing interests: the admitted need for surgery, the accused’s preference for private treatment, his continued custodial status, and the security concerns arising from the NIA’s allegations. The court crafted an intermediate arrangement: private treatment is allowed, but not in Mumbai; release from custody is not granted; treatment is permitted only at a Delhi/NCR private hospital under custody.
This approach is particularly relevant for UAPA cases where the accused does not necessarily seek unrestricted release but requires permission to obtain private specialised medical treatment while remaining under custody. The decision reinforces the principle that an accused person, even one facing grave terrorism-related charges, cannot be denied access to adequate medical care at his own expense merely because he is in custody. At the same time, the court’s refusal to permit travel to Maharashtra underscores the weight given to the prosecution’s allegations of an existing network that could be exploited if the accused were allowed to move to a location outside the court’s immediate jurisdiction.
Impact on Legal Practice
For legal professionals handling UAPA or other stringent anti-terror cases, this ruling provides a useful template for seeking medical relief when standard is not feasible. By characterising the relief as “” rather than unconditional release, the court ensures that the accused remains under constant supervision while receiving treatment. The conditions imposed—limited family access, a ban on communication with co-accused, and mandatory return to jail upon medical fitness—address the prosecution’s legitimate security concerns without defeating the purpose of the medical intervention.
The judgment also clarifies that courts will not second-guess an accused’s choice of a private hospital if the expense is borne by the accused. This is significant because government hospitals may not always offer the same level of specialised care or timely surgery. The decision encourages accused persons to seek treatment at facilities of their choice, provided they remain under custody and do not create opportunities for further criminal activity.
Conclusion
The ’s order in is a carefully calibrated exercise of discretion that prioritises the accused’s health while respecting the gravity of UAPA allegations. By granting 30-day for a hernia operation at a private hospital in Delhi-NCR, the court has set a pragmatic precedent for similar medical pleas in high-security prosecutions. The ruling underscores that the right to health is not extinguished by incarceration, but its exercise must be tailored to the specific risks posed by the accused’s alleged network. Legal practitioners will find this judgment a valuable reference for crafting arguments where medical necessity meets stringent bail jurisprudence.
