Delhi High Court Grants Interim Suspension of Sentence for Cataract Surgery, Emphasizes Strict Compliance with Conditions and Stresses No Further Extensions to Address Victim Safety Concerns

Court’s Decision:

The Delhi High Court granted the appellant interim suspension of his sentence for a limited period to undergo cataract surgery at AIIMS. The court imposed stringent conditions for his release, ensuring both the medical treatment and public safety concerns were addressed. The court explicitly stated that no further extensions of this suspension would be allowed on medical grounds unless new, compelling circumstances arose.

Facts:

1. Medical Grounds for Suspension:
   The appellant, currently serving a sentence, submitted an application seeking interim suspension to undergo cataract surgery. He presented medical records from AIIMS, New Delhi, confirming the necessity of the surgery scheduled for January 24, 2025.
2. Previous Suspension:
   Earlier, the appellant was granted a temporary suspension for medical treatment based on the AIIMS report dated December 17, 2024. This report mentioned the appellant’s bilateral cataract condition and noted previous laser treatments.
3. Application Details:
   The application highlighted the appellant’s upcoming surgery and included a booking for a private hospital ward on January 24, 2025.

Issues:

1. Whether the appellant’s medical condition warranted an interim suspension of the sentence.
2. Whether granting such relief would interfere with victim safety and the administration of justice.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Necessity of Medical Treatment:
   The appellant argued that his condition required immediate surgical intervention, as advised by AIIMS.
2. Previous Court Orders:
   The appellant relied on earlier orders of the court, which allowed suspension of his sentence for similar medical reasons.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Verification of Medical Records:
   The prosecution, represented by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), confirmed the authenticity of the medical documents submitted by the appellant.
2. Concerns Raised by the Victim’s Counsel:
   The victim’s counsel opposed the application, citing a December 20, 2024, court order that clearly stated no further extensions of the suspension would be entertained. They also expressed concerns about potential threats posed by the appellant to the victim and her family.

Analysis of the Law:

The court examined the principles governing suspension of sentences on medical grounds, emphasizing the need to balance the appellant’s right to healthcare with the safety and interests of the victim. The court also evaluated compliance with previous orders and the genuineness of medical claims.

Precedent Analysis:

1. The court referred to its own order dated December 20, 2024, which permitted temporary suspension but warned against granting repeated extensions unless absolutely necessary.
2. The medical report from AIIMS dated December 17, 2024, was integral to the decision, as it verified the appellant’s condition and recommended surgery.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Medical Necessity:
   The court recognized the seriousness of the appellant’s medical condition and the urgency of surgery, as evidenced by medical reports from AIIMS.
2. Safety Concerns:
   The court imposed several conditions to ensure public safety and prevent misuse of the suspension, addressing concerns raised by the victim’s counsel.
3. Compliance History:
   The appellant’s adherence to previous conditions played a crucial role in the court’s decision to grant relief.

Conclusion:

The court allowed interim suspension of the appellant’s sentence under the following conditions:

1. Residence Restriction: The appellant must remain at his residence (B-5/123, Safdarjung Enclave, Delhi) except for hospital visits.
2. Surgery Timeline: He must undergo surgery on January 24, 2025, and surrender immediately after:
   • If the surgery does not occur on January 24, 2025, the appellant must return to custody by 7:00 PM that day.
   • If the surgery occurs as scheduled, he must surrender by noon on January 27, 2025.
3. Police Supervision:
   • A Delhi Police constable would monitor the appellant at both his residence and the hospital.
   • Only two visitors would be allowed at a time.
4. CBI Monitoring: A CBI officer would remain in regular contact with the appellant.
5. No Further Extensions: The court categorically ruled out further extensions of the suspension on the same medical grounds.

Implications:

This judgment underscores the court’s cautious and balanced approach in granting relief on medical grounds. While prioritizing the appellant’s right to treatment, the court simultaneously addressed victim safety and ensured that such relief does not set a precedent for indefinite extensions. This decision demonstrates judicial diligence in upholding both justice and humanitarian considerations.

Also Read – Bombay High Court Rejects Plea to Quash FIR Under Sections 306 and 34 IPC, Citing Prima Facie Evidence from Suicide Note and Threatening Calls Over Financial Disputes: “Role of the Applicant Prima Facie Appears to be the Cause of Suicide”