Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Short-Term Medical Bail to UAPA Accused: “Life and Liberty Under Article 21 and Humanitarian Considerations Must Be Upheld Even in Severe Offenses”

Court’s Decision

The High Court set aside the trial court’s decision, which denied bail to the appellant. It granted the appellant a short-term medical bail for three months, allowing him to undergo necessary surgical procedures and recovery. The court emphasized that humanitarian considerations could not be ignored, even in cases involving severe offenses under the UAPA. The decision was conditional upon the appellant meeting strict bail requirements.

Facts

1. Charges and Arrest: The appellant was arrested on January 17, 2023, under FIR No. 83/2022 for offenses including murder (Section 302 IPC), conspiracy (Section 34 IPC), and sections under the UAPA and Arms Act.
2. Medical Condition:
   • The appellant underwent two surgeries for a severe ailment (Orchidectomy/Orchidopexy).
   • Medical records showed complications, including a “Mesh infection,” requiring a third surgery within six to eight weeks from November 13, 2024.
3. Trial Court’s Rejection: The trial court rejected the bail plea, stating:
   • CrPC does not explicitly provide for short-term bail.
   • Medical care was being provided in custody.
   • Bail could set a precedent for routine bail pleas under similar circumstances.

Issues

1. Does the appellant’s severe medical condition justify short-term bail under humanitarian grounds?
2. Did the trial court err in its interpretation of the CrPC and fail to consider Article 21 rights?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Critical Medical Need:
   • Submitted hospital records proving his severe condition, including failed surgeries and the need for another procedure.
   • Highlighted the inadequacy of prison facilities for post-operative care.
2. Constitutional Rights:
   • Argued that denying bail would violate Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution.
3. Relief Sought:
   • Requested a four-month bail period for post-operative care and recovery.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Public Safety:
   • Emphasized the gravity of the offenses, including murder and UAPA charges.
   • Argued that bail could lead to absconding or tampering with evidence.
2. Adequate Medical Care in Custody:
   • Asserted that the appellant was already receiving medical treatment in detention.
   • Contended that future surgeries could also be managed while in custody.

Analysis of the Law

1. Article 21’s Primacy: The court emphasized that life and liberty under Article 21 are paramount. Even under stringent laws like UAPA, medical emergencies must be addressed.
2. Recognition of Short-Term Bail: The court referred to precedents affirming short-term or interim bail for:
   • Medical emergencies.
   • Family bereavement.
   • Other humanitarian grounds.
3. Judicial Precedents:
   • The court cited Dr. P.V. Varavara Rao v. NIA & Anr., where the Bombay High Court granted bail under UAPA on medical grounds.
   • Highlighted that humanitarian relief does not negate the seriousness of charges but ensures fundamental rights.

Precedent Analysis

The court reviewed previous judgments to determine whether medical grounds could override procedural limitations under stringent laws. It affirmed that:

• Courts must balance individual rights and public interest.
• In cases of non-life-threatening but serious ailments, bail can be granted under stringent conditions.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Verified Medical Records:
   • Medical certificates confirmed the need for immediate surgical intervention and post-operative care.
   • The appellant’s condition was deemed unmanageable in custody due to its complexity.
2. Error by the Trial Court:
   • The trial court wrongly dismissed the plea by narrowly interpreting procedural laws.
   • The lack of explicit provisions for short-term bail in CrPC does not negate its availability under humanitarian grounds.
3. Balance of Considerations:
   • While acknowledging the severity of UAPA charges, the court noted that the appellant’s health needs could not be ignored.

Conclusion

The High Court granted short-term bail for three months, enabling the appellant to:

• Undergo necessary medical treatment.
• Recover under family care.

The bail conditions included:

• Furnishing a bond to the trial court.
• Staying within the Kashmir Valley.
• Regularly appearing before the trial court.
• Surrendering to custody after three months.

Implications

1. Humanitarian Precedence: The judgment reinforces that health emergencies take precedence, even in stringent legal frameworks like UAPA.
2. Balanced Approach: It demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to constitutional values while maintaining public safety.
3. Future Reference: Sets a benchmark for granting medical bail under exceptional circumstances, ensuring procedural fairness without undermining legal safeguards.

Also Read – Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Conviction for Outraging Modesty Under Section 354 IPC: Reduces Sentence to Time Served, Enhances Fine to ₹7,000 with ₹5,000 as Compensation, and Emphasizes Timeliness and Evidence