Justice Rajesh Sekhri, while upholding the order of the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Srinagar, observed that an illness does not automatically entitle an accused to medical bail and that courts must assess the seriousness of the condition, the treatment required and the availability of adequate medical care during custody.
The court, however, directed the jail authorities to ensure that the petitioner receives regular medical treatment whenever required. It also clarified that he would remain at liberty to seek regular bail.
The judgment was pronounced on October 31, 2026, after the matter was reserved on October 29. The petitioner, Sajad Ahmad Sheikh, had challenged the May 12, 2026, order of the Special Judge rejecting his application for extension of medical bail.
According to the prosecution, the case originated on August 26, 2024, when a police naka party intercepted three persons travelling in a vehicle from Mehjoor Nagar towards Budshah Nagar. During their search, 36 bottles of Codril-T containing Codeine Phosphate, a manufactured drug covered under the NDPS Act, were recovered from accused Aniket Kumar.
Following the recovery, FIR No. 31/2024 was registered at Police Station Chanapora under Sections 8/22 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The investigation subsequently culminated in the filing of a charge sheet against the petitioner and the co-accused.
Sheikh had earlier approached the High Court seeking bail on medical grounds, citing a serious cardiac condition, Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus, hypertension, fatty liver and other associated ailments. On June 6, 2025, the High Court granted him limited medical bail, leaving it open to the trial court to consider any request for its extension in light of his health condition and medical records.
After the initial four-month period expired, he sought an extension before the trial court, claiming that his cardiac stent required replacement. He maintained that the procedure could not be performed because his pulse rate was above the prescribed limit and that the prison medical facilities were inadequate to provide the specialised treatment he needed.
He apprehended that any delay in treatment could result in irreversible medical complications.
The prosecution opposed the application, arguing that the allegations involved a commercial quantity of a manufactured drug and that the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applied. It maintained that the medical documents did not establish any acute emergency or urgent surgical requirement that could not be managed through the available prison healthcare system.
The prosecution also pointed out that Sheikh had failed to make proper use of the medical bail earlier granted to him. It argued that the prescriptions placed on record reflected scattered hospital visits in June, August and October 2025, without indicating any confirmed date for surgical intervention.
The Special Judge had sought an assessment from the Standing Medical Board at Government SMHS Hospital, Srinagar, which submitted reports on January 8 and March 10, 2026. Relying on these assessments, the trial court concluded that the petitioner could remain in custody under close medical supervision and regular cardiology follow-up at the Super Specialty Hospital, Shireen Bagh.
Before the High Court, advocate Sajad Ashraf, appearing for Sheikh, challenged the trial court’s assessment, arguing that the two medical reports established the seriousness of his cardiac condition and the need for coronary angiography, continuous monitoring, specialist consultations and further treatment.
He contended that the trial court had failed to properly appreciate the reports, which, according to him, indicated a deterioration in the petitioner’s health. He sought setting aside of the May 12 order and continuation of the medical bail granted earlier.
The respondents opposed the plea, relying on the gravity of the allegations and the restrictions under the NDPS Act. Their counsel submitted that the petitioner was receiving appropriate treatment and that the jail authorities could arrange referral to a government hospital or another medical institution under judicial escort whenever specialised care was required.
After examining the medical record, Justice Sekhri noted that the Standing Medical Board’s first report recorded complaints of chest pain on exertion and advised coronary angiography to rule out blockages in blood vessels other than those allegedly stented earlier. However, the Board had also stated that the petitioner could remain in custody subject to close medical supervision and regular cardiology follow-up.
The court noted that the Board’s subsequent report, following a clinical examination on March 7, 2026, clarified that the petitioner was experiencing angina on exertion and required coronary angiography. It also corrected an earlier reference to stenting, stating that the mention of a previous stenting procedure had resulted from miscommunication and that no such procedure had been carried out.
The judge observed that this clarification undermined the principal medical ground on which the petitioner had sought an extension of bail.
The judgment noted that the other ailments cited by Sheikh could be managed through outpatient consultations, follow-up treatment and lifestyle modifications, and did not fall beyond the capabilities of the Central Jail’s medical facilities or its referral arrangements with SMHS Hospital and the Super Specialty Hospital.
The court reiterated that Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to personal liberty and requires that persons in custody receive proper medical attention. Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Re Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2017), it observed that the right to health was a human right and that governments were required to ensure access to medical facilities for prisoners.
However, the judge said courts must balance an accused person’s health and dignity with the requirements of criminal proceedings. The existence of an illness alone was not sufficient to justify release if appropriate treatment could be provided while the accused remained in custody.
The court also relied on Supreme Court rulings in Pawan alias Tamatar v. Ramprakash Pandey (2002), State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati (2020) and Ajit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (March 18, 2025), which underscored that medical bail could not be granted merely because an accused was suffering from an illness when adequate treatment remained available through prison or government healthcare facilities.
Another factor considered by the High Court was the petitioner’s failure to report for the coronary angiography scheduled by the Medical Board on February 25, 2026.
The court noted that Sheikh had neither explained his absence before the trial court nor offered any justification in the petition before the High Court.
Agreeing with the trial court’s assessment, Justice Sekhri observed that the petitioner could not claim that his cardiac condition required immediate intervention and release from custody while failing to attend the medical procedure arranged for him.
The judgment further endorsed the trial court’s observation that medical bail was not an open-ended liberty that could continue after the medical purpose for which it had been granted was allowed to lapse.
Finding no illegality or impropriety in the trial court’s decision, the High Court dismissed the bail application and upheld the impugned order. It directed the jail authorities to provide the petitioner with regular medical care as and when required, while preserving his right to apply for regular bail.
