Medical bail requires judicial assessment of illness and necessity; a bare treatment claim is not enough.

Cancellation applications were maintainable under Section 482 and Article 227 because the accused had not yet availed of bail, so the usual cancellation provisions under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) were not effective. Bail granted on medical grounds under the proviso to Section 437(1) requires a judicial assessment of the nature and seriousness of the illness, the adequacy of treatment in custody, and the necessity of release. A bare assertion of treatment, without medical inquiry or supporting material, was treated as insufficient. The impugned bail order was therefore quashed as illegal, perverse and arbitrary.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the applications for cancellation of bail were maintainable under the Code and Article 227 of the Constitution of India when the accused had not yet been released on bail; (ii) whether bail granted by the Magistrate under the proviso to Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground of sickness and medical treatment was legally sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the applications for cancellation of bail were maintainable under the Code and Article 227 of the Constitution of India when the accused had not yet been released on bail.

Analysis: Section 437(5) and Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contemplate arrest and commitment to custody after a person has been released on bail. Where the accused has not actually availed of the bail, those provisions do not furnish an effective remedy. In such a situation, the High Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 and its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct a patently illegal or perverse bail order and prevent abuse of process.

Conclusion: The applications were maintainable under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (ii): Whether bail granted by the Magistrate under the proviso to Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground of sickness and medical treatment was legally sustainable.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 437(1) confers a discretionary power to be exercised sparingly and on judicial principles. Not every illness justifies release on bail. The Court must satisfy itself about the nature and seriousness of the ailment, the adequacy of treatment available in custody or in the existing hospital, and whether the condition is such that bail is necessary. In the present case, no medical report was called for, no adequate inquiry was made into the nature of the illness, and the order was passed on a bare assertion that the accused was under treatment. The order also ignored the surrounding circumstances and was passed in undue haste.

Conclusion: The bail order was illegal, perverse, arbitrary and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned bail order was quashed and set aside, and the cancellation applications were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A bail order under the proviso to Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot rest merely on the accused being under medical treatment; the Court must make a judicial assessment of the nature of sickness and the necessity for release, and a perverse bail order may be corrected in inherent and supervisory jurisdiction where the statutory cancellation provisions are not workable because bail has not been availed of.

---