1. Appeal against rejection of interim bail on medical grounds in NIA case under UAPA and IPC. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 19895
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Vikas Mahajan, JJ
Farhan Ansar Suse – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency – Respondent
CRL.A. 777/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Satyakam, Shaikh Saipan Dastgir, Rehan Galib Khan, Harish Chand, Anant Chittoria
For the Respondents: Asmita Singh
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Satyakam, Shaikh Saipan Dastgir, Rehan Galib Khan, Harish Chand, Anant Chittoria
For the Respondents: Asmita Singh
The court may grant limited custody bail for medical treatment in a private hospital within the jurisdiction if the risk of flight or tampering is high in other regions, ensuring the accused receives necessary healthcare while remaining under judicial control.
Headnote:(A) Interim Bail - Medical Grounds - Right to private treatment - An accused cannot be prevented from undergoing necessary surgery at a private hospital at their own expense, even if government facilities are available. (Para 19)
(B) Bail - Risk Assessment - Jurisdiction of treatment - Request for treatment in a different state (Maharashtra) rejected where the accused is alleged to have a criminal network in that region, limiting the bail to the local NCR region. (Para 20)
Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to interim bail for medical treatment in Bombay.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant sought bail for surgery and family visit; NIA opposed citing active ISIS membership and flight risk. (Para 14 , 15 )
3. Court found medical treatment needed but refused Bombay due to alleged network; allowed treatment in Delhi/NCR under custody. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Interim medical bail may be granted for private treatment at own expense, with custodial restrictions to prevent undue advantage. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )
5. Appeal disposed of; 30-day custody bail granted for surgery in Delhi/NCR private hospital at appellant's expense. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 )
6. Can interim bail be granted on medical grounds to an accused in a serious NIA case?
Yes, if the accused requires surgery and is willing to bear private hospital costs, subject to custodial restrictions. (Para 19 , 21 )
7. Can the court impose restrictions on the geographical area for medical bail?
Yes, the court may restrict treatment to a specific region (e.g., Delhi/NCR) if the accused has an alleged local network posing flight risk. (Para 20 , 21 )
8. What conditions may be imposed on medical custody bail?
Conditions may include limited duration, custodial supervision, prohibition on communication with co-accused or outsiders, and immediate return on fitness. (Para 22 )
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency, Act 2008, inter alia, assailing the impugned order dated 1st August, 2026 passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) arising out of FIR No. RC- 29/2023/NIA/DLI.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Appellant’s interim bail application has been rejected by Special Court, National Investigation Agency (hereinafter, ‘NIA’).
4. On 13th August, 2026, notice was issued in the present appeal and the NIA was directed to file its reply within two weeks. Further, the Court had directed that a report be called from the medical officer of the concerned jail.
5. Pursuant thereto, on 16th September, 2026, the Court had directed the ld. Sr. Counsel for the Appellant to seek instructions as to whether the Appellant could get his treatment done in a private hospital in Delhi.
6. As per the NIA, the Appellant has been charge-sheeted in FIR RC- 29/2023/NIA/DLI dated 6th November, 2023, under Sections 120B and 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘the IPC’) and Sections 13, 18, 18A, 20, 38 and 39 of the 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter, ‘UAPA Act’). The chargesheet was filed on 21st March, 2024 and, thereafter, the first supplementary chargesheet was filed on 3rd June, 2024 by the NIA.
7. As per the first supplementary chargesheet, the broad allegations against the Appellant are as follows:
(i) The Appellant, along with various other co-accused, were allegedly in conspiracy with A-13 i.e., Saquib Nachan, who was operating for ISIS in India. He has since passed away,
(ii) The further allegation against the Appellant is that a network of extortion was being run by the Appellant for ISIS.
(iii) He has also allegedly circulated various messages, etc., on behalf of ISIS.
(iv) He allegedly took an oath of allegiance to ISIS.
(v) Certain evidence has also been relied upon to allege that the Appellant had made various demands, and had collected large amounts of money, in cash, from various businessmen in the area of Padgha, Maharashtra, for supporting ISIS.
8. The aforesaid allegations which have been made against the Appellant in the first supplementary chargesheet are as under:
“17.34 It is established that, in the said meeting, A-13 gave bayth of khalifa of ISIS in Arable language to A-4, A-6, A-7, A-9, A-10, A-14, A-18 and other residents of Padgha village namely Zulfikar Ali Barodawala, Akif Nachan, Sharjeel Sheikh, Shamil Nachan [arrested & charge-sheeted accused in another NIA ISIS Case RC- 02/2023/NIA/MUM & RC-05/2023/NIA/MUM] and another suspect. The A-13 recruited them as an active members of ISIS and directed them to follow the path of Jihad. Further he said that, "Eliminate any difficulty, shoot, drop bombs, or die fighting for Jihad, you will get heaven. I have also put my children on this path of Jihad. "The witness statement reveals this fact.
17.35 It is revealed that, to further the activities of ISIS, A-13 and his associates approached ex-SIMI members and co-accused in different criminal cases. In December 2021, a conspiracy meeting was held at house of A-13 at Borivali Padgha village. In the said meeting, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-11, A-13, A-14, A-17, A-18, Akif Nachan & Shamil Nachan son of A-13 were present. In that meeting, A-13 insisted a witness to join ISIS by declaring that, during this regime, atrocities on Muslims are increased in India, ban on slaughter of animals and mob lynching is happening in its name. Laws are being made against Muslims, NRC, CAA, ban on Talaq, this is interference in Islam, we have not forgotten the martyrdom of Babri Masjid yet, it is necessary to take revenge for it. Just celebrating 'Black Day' and taking out rallies will not work. Once again we will have to teach the kafirs (infidels) a lesson with Jihad
