2023 (10) TMI 1402 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of interim bail to facilitate the undertaking of necessary medical tests and treatment under the supervision of his personal physician - HELD THAT - This Court places the health and well-being of an individual as the foremost consideration, irrespective of the gravity of the alleged offense. It's important to recognize that custody during the investigative phase should not be perceived as punitive. Every individual has the inherent right to receive comprehensive and effective medical care. This Court firmly upholds the belief that individuals in custody with serious health issues should be granted access to adequate and effective medical treatment. The exercise of discretion in granting interim bail on medical grounds should not be restricted to circumstances where the person's life is in immediate peril. Moreover, there is no conflicting medical report indicating that the petitioner's surgery is unnecessary. The undisputed fact remains that the petitioner is suffering from specific ailments that demand medical attention, particularly regarding his right eye. Considering the painful and pressing nature of the petitioner's reported health conditions, and without delving into the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to grant interim bail solely for the purpose of allowing the petitioner to undergo the necessary medical examination. The medical report clearly indicates that the petitioner requires cataract surgery on his right eye. Therefore, it is a reasonable proposition to permit him to seek treatment at the same hospital where he had the surgery for his left eye. The petitioner/A.37 is entitled to interim bail on medical grounds subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to interim bail on medical grounds.
2. Adequacy of medical facilities in jail.
3. The necessity of specific medical tests and treatments.
4. Allegations and counterarguments regarding the severity of the petitioner’s health condition.
5. Legal precedents and their applicability to the case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Interim Bail on Medical Grounds:
The petitioner, aged 73, sought interim bail under Sections 437 and 439 r/w Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to undergo necessary medical tests and treatments. The petitioner was detained on 08.09.2023 and arrested on 09.09.2023 under multiple sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner argued that his health was deteriorating due to inadequate medical facilities in jail and required medical supervision by his personal physician.

2. Adequacy of Medical Facilities in Jail:
The petitioner’s medical reports indicated several health issues, including Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy. The petitioner argued that the jail facilities were insufficient for his medical needs, citing a medical report dated 14.10.2023. The respondent countered that the petitioner was receiving adequate medical care in jail and his condition was stable, as evidenced by his weight increase from 66 kg to 67.5 kg.

3. Necessity of Specific Medical Tests and Treatments:
The petitioner’s medical reports recommended several tests, including Complete Blood Picture, Renal Function Test, Liver Function Tests, Serum Electrolytes, Coagulation Profile, HbA1C, Complete Urine Examination, ECG, X-Ray, Chest, and 2D Echo. The petitioner sought to undertake these tests from his chosen medical team. Additionally, the petitioner required cataract surgery for his right eye, as advised by the LV Prasad Eye Institute and other medical professionals.

4. Allegations and Counterarguments Regarding the Severity of the Petitioner’s Health Condition:
The respondent argued that the petitioner’s condition was not severe and he was receiving necessary medical care in jail. However, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the petitioner’s health issues, including the need for cataract surgery and management of chronic conditions, warranted interim bail for proper medical treatment. The court noted that the petitioner’s medical conditions were genuine and required attention, especially the cataract surgery for his right eye.

5. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability to the Case:
The court referred to several legal precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Satyendar Kumar Jain vs. Directorate of Enforcement, which emphasized the right of an individual to choose their medical treatment. The court also considered the decision in Pt. Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India, which highlighted the importance of preserving human life, whether the individual is innocent or a criminal. The court found these precedents applicable and relevant to the petitioner’s case.

Conclusion:
The court granted interim bail to the petitioner for four weeks to undergo necessary medical treatment, including cataract surgery for his right eye. The conditions for bail included furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, undergoing treatment at a hospital of his choice at his expense, and providing details of the treatment to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram. The petitioner was required to surrender before the Superintendent on or before 28.11.2023. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s health and well-being were of paramount importance, and the decision was made with a humanitarian perspective.