9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 1281 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of Interim Bail - bail sought on medical grounds for a period of two months while directing listing of the regular Bail Application - HELD THAT - The report of the S.G.P.G.I.M.S., i.e., the super-speciality hospital, which was on the record as well as report of the medical board dated 10.06.2020, which was brought in the notice of the High Court have neither been considered nor referred to by the High Court in the impugned order. When the Respondent was being given treatment in the super-speciality hospital, i.e., S.G.P.G.I.M.S. as recommended by K.G.M.U., we fail to see as to what were the shortcomings in the medical treatment offered to Respondent, which could have been the basis for grant of interim bail on medical ground. Further, as per condition (ii) mentioned in paragraph 27, the High Court contemplated that Respondent shall ordinarily reside at a place of residence, as assured, far from the place of residence of the prosecutrix and her immediate family, thus, the contemplation was that Respondent shall reside at his residence. There was no satisfaction recorded by the High Court that treatment offered to Respondent was not adequate and he requires any further treatment by any particular medical institute for which it is necessary to release the Respondent on interim bail on medical grounds. Humane treatment to all including an Accused is requirement of law. Furthermore, a prisoner, who is suffering from an ailment, has to be given due treatment and care while in prison. Even as on date, due medical care is being taken of the Respondent, which is apparent from the additional documents filed as Annexure A-2 and Annexure A-3 alongwith the application dated 10.10.2020. The High Court, without considering the entire materials on record, has passed the impugned order dated 03.09.2020, which is unsustainable - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Interim Bail on Medical Grounds 2. Adequacy of Medical Treatment in Jail 3. High Court's Consideration of Medical Reports 4. Humane Treatment of Accused Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Interim Bail on Medical Grounds: The appeal questions the Allahabad High Court's order granting interim bail to the Respondent on medical grounds for two months. The Respondent, a former minister, is accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. Despite being admitted to King George Medical University (K.G.M.U.) and later transferred to Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (S.G.P.G.I.M.S.) for specialized treatment, the High Court granted interim bail based on the applicant's medical condition. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court did not adequately consider the medical reports from these institutions before granting bail. 2. Adequacy of Medical Treatment in Jail: The Appellant argued that the Respondent received adequate medical treatment in both K.G.M.U. and S.G.P.G.I.M.S., and there was no need for interim bail. The medical board's report and subsequent medical evaluations indicated that the Respondent's conditions, including diabetes, hypertension, and other ailments, were being managed effectively. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to consider these comprehensive medical reports, which showed that the Respondent's health was stable and under control. 3. High Court's Consideration of Medical Reports: The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court did not refer to the medical board's report dated 10.06.2020 and the S.G.P.G.I.M.S. report, which were crucial in assessing the Respondent's medical condition. The High Court's reasoning, based on the medical status report and the threat posed by COVID-19, did not sufficiently address the adequacy of the medical treatment already being provided. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should have considered the entirety of the medical evidence before granting interim bail. 4. Humane Treatment of Accused: The Respondent's counsel argued for humane treatment, emphasizing that the Respondent, despite being accused of serious offenses, deserved proper medical care. The Supreme Court agreed that humane treatment is a legal requirement, but it also noted that the Respondent was already receiving due medical care in specialized institutions. The Court reiterated that humane treatment does not necessarily entail release on bail if adequate medical facilities are available within the prison system. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order granting interim bail. It clarified that the observations made were specific to the interim bail issue and would not affect the pending regular bail application. The Court stressed the importance of considering all medical evidence and reports before making decisions on bail, especially on medical grounds.
|
