The right to health and life under Article 21 of the Constitution outweighs the severity of the offense when a prisoner requires specialized medical treatment that justifies temporary release on interim bail, even under the rigorous provisions of the UAPA.

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 21(4) OF THE NIA ACT 2008, PRAYING TO: (A) CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS IN SPL.C.NO.744 OF 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-SPECIAL COURT FOR NIA CASES, BENGALURU; (B) ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2026 PASSED BY THE XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES), (CCH-50) AT BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.744/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.11 ON BAIL IN SPL.C.NO.744/2023 PENDING IN THE COURT OF THE XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES), (CCH-50) AT BENGALURU FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 153A, 120B OF IPC, AND SECTION 13, 18, 18A, 22B OF UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT (UAPA).

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

This appeal is filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (‘NIA Act’ for short) r/w Section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973, seeking to set aside the order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the Court of XLIX Additional City Civil and Session Judge, (Special Court for trial of NIA cases) (CCH-50), Bengaluru in Spl.C.No.744/2023 and consequently to enlarge the appellant on bail.

2. We have heard the learned counsel Smt.Siddika Aisha, Advocate appearing for Sri Rahamathulla Kothwal for appellant, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent/NIA and perused the material on record.

3. The respondent/NIA has filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 153A , 120B of IPC and Sections 13, 18, 18A, 22B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UA (P) Act’ for short). Amongst the charge sheeted accused, 9 accused including 2 absconding accused are charged under the UA (P) Act, including the appellant, arraigned as accused No.11. It is not in dispute that appellant's bail applications were rejected by the trial Court on merits. However, the instant application before the trial Court was filed on medical grounds, which came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 09.04.2026.

4. It is submitted that the appellant is suffering from severe health ailments and rheumatic heart disease. As per his medical records, there are no resting regional wall motion abnormalities. His cardiac function has significantly deteriorated over time. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which was 62% two years ago, has now reduced to 47% indicating a decline in heart pumping efficiency and overall cardiac performance. Considering the deteriorating health condition, he was taken to Sri Jayadeva Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences and Research, where he underwent detailed cardiac evaluation and upon examination, the doctors have confirmed and affirmed the diagnosis of rheumatic heart disease with moderate mitral regurgitation, along with noted reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to 47%.

5. The Learned counsel for appellant would contend that the continued detention of the appellant in the present medical condition poses a serious threat to his life and health. The absence of proper and immediate medical care may lead to further deterioration and irreversible complications and he requires periodic cardiac evaluation, medication and specialized treatment with continuous medical supervision, which cannot be effectively ensured whi