Supreme Court : When the court should not release an accused on medical bail?

What had all the same been argued by Mr. Khurshid was that the medical condition of the Petitioner called for immediate surgery for which purpose he had placed reliance upon a certificate issued by Dr. Maheep Singh Gaur. It was argued that the Petitioner would like to be evaluated at Kumud Chawla Gamma Knife Centre, Goodwill Hospital and Research Centre, NOIDA. We had in view of this submission made at the Bar directed constitution of a Medical Board by the Director of AI-IMS to review the medical papers relevant to the Petitioner's present condition and to submit a report as to whether there was any need for surgery as suggested by the Petitioner's doctor. We had left it open to the Medical Board to call the Petitioner for a clinical examination should if it considered necessary to do so.

3. A Board comprising as many as 8 Doctors from different specialities was accordingly constituted by the AIIMS before whom the Petitioner was produced in person for a clinical examination, apart from evaluation of his medical papers. The Board has based on their clinical examination and investigations submitted a report dated 02.01.2015 in which it has opined:

"On basis of above examination and investigations by the Medical Board, he was diagnosed to be suffering from Trigeminal Neuralgia with degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with Hypothyroidism and Benign Hyperplasia of Prostate. Radiological and blood investigation reports are enclosed in original.

At present, none of the above mentioned disease require surgical management but requires appropriate routine medical management on OPD basis.

The medical board concluded at 6.00 p.m."

4. It is evident from that above that the Petitioner does not require any surgical intervention at this stage and that the diseases which he is found to be suffering from like Trigeminal Neuralgia, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, Hypothyroidism and Benign Hyperplasia of Prostate can be handled in the OPD. We have no reason to doubt or reject the opinion given by the experts from the premier medical institute of the country. Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel all the same argued that some of the diseases namely degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with Hypothyroidism and Benign Hyperplasia of Prostate was developed by the Petitioner during incarnation. There is nothing before us to support even that submission of Learned Counsel. Be that as it may since the Board has suggested only medical management on OPD basis, there is no compelling reason for us to enlarge the Petitioner on bail at this stage when the Petitioner is facing serious charges some of which are punishable by imprisonment for life.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

SLP (Crl.) Nos. 3852, 4916 and 4918-4919 of 2014

Decided On: 20.01.2015

Asharam Bapu Vs. State of Rajasthan

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

T.S. Thakur, R.K. Agrawal and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0370/2015.

Print Page

Supreme court: What are pre-requisite for grant of medical bail to accused prosecuted for heinous offence?

11.1. Insofar as the grant of bail to Respondent (A2) on medical grounds is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel made the following submissions:

(i) The medical opinion dated 24.10.2024 did not disclose the type of surgery, the prospective date of the surgery, its nature, or the post-operative care required. Despite the vagueness and absence of any indication of urgency, the High Court proceeded to enlarge the first Respondent on medical bail for a period of six weeks, without even constituting a medical board to assess the genuineness of the claim. This is contrary to the law laid down in Sant Shri Asaram Bapu v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0370/2015 wherein it was held that expert medical opinion is essential before grant of medical bail.

(ii) Subsequently, it was brought to the attention of the High Court that Respondent No. 1 had not undergone any surgery or substantial treatment even at the end of the six-week period. The Court failed to consider this fact and instead observed that there was no reason to disbelieve the version of the Accused. The contradictory conduct of the Respondent is apparent from the fact that although he claimed surgery was scheduled on 11.12.2024, it was not undertaken on the specious ground that his blood pressure was not stable - a condition that can ordinarily be managed with medication if the surgery were truly urgent.

(iii) The conduct of Respondent No. 1 clearly indicates the lack of any immediate medical necessity. The continued delay and vague justifications point to the falsity of the medical claim. This Respondent approached the court with unclean hands, having misrepresented facts regarding the urgency of surgery in order to obtain bail. However, the High Court failed to take into consideration the same.

(iv) Such approach of the High Court is contrary to the settled principle of law that any party who misleads the court is disentitled to discretionary relief, such as bail. Therefore, the High Court ought to have rejected his criminal petition, instead of granting regular bail to the Respondent/A2.

(c) Bail obtained on misrepresentation of medical grounds

22.3. The bail order dated 13.12.2024 passed by the High Court, was granted primarily on the basis of the alleged urgent medical condition of the 1st Respondent/A2. However, a bare perusal of the medical records and subsequent conduct of the Accused reveals that the medical plea was misleading, vague, and grossly exaggerated.

22.3.1. This Court has consistently held that bail granted on medical grounds must be based on credible, specific, and urgent need, not on general or future apprehensions. [Refer: State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi and Dinesh M.N. v. State of Gujarat, (supra)].

22.3.2. The discharge summary dated 28.11.2024 issued by the hospital, mentions that A2 is a patient with a history of diabetes, hypertension, and prior cardiac issues, and that he may require a CABG surgery in the future. However, the report does not indicate: any current emergency or need for immediate medical intervention; any life-threatening condition warranting urgent release; and any inability of the prison medical system to manage his current state. Thus, there is no compelling medical necessity for grant of bail.

22.3.3. In Puran v. Rambilas (supra), this Court held that "if it is shown that a party obtained bail by misrepresentation or fraud, or by suppressing material facts, such bail is liable to be cancelled on that ground alone". Similarly, in State of U.P. v. Narendra Nath Sinha (2019) 10 SCC 528, it was observed that "bail obtained by concealing facts or misleading the court vitiates the order, as it defeats the interest of justice".

22.3.4. Contrary to the impression created before the High Court, A2 has made multiple public appearances, including participation in high-profile social events, was seen in fine health and mobility, and did not undergo any surgery or serious medical procedure post-release. This establishes that he abused the liberty of bail, which was obtained on a false and misleading premise.

22.3.5. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (supra), this Court cautioned that "bail on medical grounds can be granted only in exceptional cases where the medical condition is serious, cannot be treated in custody, and necessary facilities are not available in jail". The burden to prove such necessity lies on the Accused.

22.3.6. In the present case, A2 failed to demonstrate that the jail hospital was incapable of managing his condition or that adequate treatment could not be given in judicial custody. Instead, the High Court proceeded to grant bail without recording a definitive finding on the urgency, seriousness, or inadequacy of treatment in custody. This results in a perverse and legally unsustainable bail order, liable to be cancelled as per the principles laid down in Puran and Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal   MANU/SC/0687/2004 : (2004) 11 SCC 165.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 3528-3534 of 2025

Decided On: 14.08.2025

State of Karnataka Vs. Darshan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.

Author: R. Mahadevan, J.

Citation: Citation: 2025 INSC 979, MANU/SC/1098/2025

Print Page

When Justice Takes Pause: The Shifting Landscape of Bail for Women, the Pregnant, and the Infirm Under India’s Criminal Laws

 Introduction: Beyond the General Rule

In most cases, bail is a contested battlefield. An accused charged with a serious offence—especially one punishable with death or life imprisonment—faces a formidable obstacle: the presumption against bail. Yet the Indian legal system has always harbored an exception to this rule. It acknowledges that certain categories of offenders present unique circumstances that justice must accommodate. This article examines how courts navigate the intersection of criminal procedure, constitutional protections, and human dignity when women, pregnant individuals, and the medically infirm come before them seeking release on bail.

Print Page