Back
NDPS Accused's Treatment Refusal Leads to Bail Denial: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
In a significant ruling, the has held that an accused in a NDPS case cannot by delaying treatment and refusing necessary procedures. Dismissing the medical bail plea of Manzoor Ahmad Hajam, Justice M.A. Chowdhary underscored that the of must take precedence over an accused's medical condition when the accused manipulates the process.
A Strategy of Delay Unravels
Hajam was arrested on , after 20 bottles of Codeine Phosphate syrup—a contraband—were recovered from his possession during a naka checking operation at Kathpora near Hajin. Charged under , he sought short-term , claiming he suffered from a calcific pancreatic lesion described as stage 1 of developing cancer. He argued that he required an FNAC procedure and biopsy that could not be performed while in custody.
The had earlier granted him interim medical bail in , which was extended periodically for nearly eleven months. However, when the petitioner failed to undergo the prescribed medical tests—repeatedly citing —the trial court finally rejected further extension in , observing the absence of any necessitating release.
The Legal Hurdle: Section 37 of the
The respondent Union Territory opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner had ample opportunity during his eleven-month bail period to complete the diagnostic procedures but instead chose to delay. The government produced a detailed health status report from the Central Jail and .
The court noted that the petitioner had been escorted to SKIMS on multiple occasions for a scheduled Celiac Plexus Block and ERCP procedure but explicitly refused to undergo ERCP on four separate dates—July 6, July 23, August 10, and —citing structural discomfort. When he finally underwent a biopsy, the report showed in his pancreas. The health status report concluded that the petitioner was "medically better" and that his .
Justice Chowdhary observed that the petitioner's conduct revealed a
:
"From the medical record produced by the Respondents, it is clear that the Petitioner had been delaying the conducting of the tests, on one pretext or the other, and had, on many occasions, sought deferring of the tests."
Precedents That Bind
The court relied on several decisions to reinforce the mandatory nature of Section 37. In
v. Kashif
(2025), the Apex Court held that
"
"
for offences punishable with a minimum ten-year sentence. Similarly, in
Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese
(2025), the cautioned that a finding of cannot be a casual observation—it must rest on careful appraisal of material.
The High Court specifically rejected the argument that the rigours of Section 37 are relaxed due to medical conditions, stating:
"When the statutory conditions contained therein are pitted against the plea of
, likely delay in the trial, or the medical condition of the accused, as in the present case, the
."
The Final Verdict
While the court acknowledged that can be granted regardless of the statutory bar, it found that the petitioner had squandered the opportunity during his earlier release and that no malignancy existed. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
However, the court directed the jail authorities to ensure continuous medical care:
"The Petitioner shall be continuously examined on daily basis by the Jail Doctor and shall be taken for specialized treatment, in case required, without any delay, so that his health is not compromised."
The ruling sends a clear message: an accused cannot exploit medical grounds by delaying treatment and refusing consent. The under Section 37 of the remains a formidable barrier, and the court will scrutinise medical claims for evidence of genuine need rather than manipulation.
