Interim medical bail on health grounds denied where in-custody treatment and medical reports were found adequate; appeal allowed

Interim bail on medical grounds was contested on the basis that specialist hospital reports and a medical board report were not considered; the absence of recorded satisfaction that in-custody treatment was inadequate meant no necessity for interim release, and the High Courts order granting interim bail without addressing the medical records was unsustainable, leading to allowance of the appeal. The decision reiterates that humane treatment and due medical care of an accused in custody are legal requirements, and residency conditions on interim release must reflect assurances to avoid proximity to the victims family.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interim Bail on Medical Grounds
2. Adequacy of Medical Treatment in Jail
3. High Court's Consideration of Medical Reports
4. Humane Treatment of Accused

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interim Bail on Medical Grounds:
The appeal questions the Allahabad High Court's order granting interim bail to the Respondent on medical grounds for two months. The Respondent, a former minister, is accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. Despite being admitted to King George Medical University (K.G.M.U.) and later transferred to Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences (S.G.P.G.I.M.S.) for specialized treatment, the High Court granted interim bail based on the applicant's medical condition. The Supreme Court, however, found that the High Court did not adequately consider the medical reports from these institutions before granting bail.

2. Adequacy of Medical Treatment in Jail:
The Appellant argued that the Respondent received adequate medical treatment in both K.G.M.U. and S.G.P.G.I.M.S., and there was no need for interim bail. The medical board's report and subsequent medical evaluations indicated that the Respondent's conditions, including diabetes, hypertension, and other ailments, were being managed effectively. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to consider these comprehensive medical reports, which showed that the Respondent's health was stable and under control.

3. High Court's Consideration of Medical Reports:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court did not refer to the medical board's report dated 10.06.2020 and the S.G.P.G.I.M.S. report, which were crucial in assessing the Respondent's medical condition. The High Court's reasoning, based on the medical status report and the threat posed by COVID-19, did not sufficiently address the adequacy of the medical treatment already being provided. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should have considered the entirety of the medical evidence before granting interim bail.

4. Humane Treatment of Accused:
The Respondent's counsel argued for humane treatment, emphasizing that the Respondent, despite being accused of serious offenses, deserved proper medical care. The Supreme Court agreed that humane treatment is a legal requirement, but it also noted that the Respondent was already receiving due medical care in specialized institutions. The Court reiterated that humane treatment does not necessarily entail release on bail if adequate medical facilities are available within the prison system.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order granting interim bail. It clarified that the observations made were specific to the interim bail issue and would not affect the pending regular bail application. The Court stressed the importance of considering all medical evidence and reports before making decisions on bail, especially on medical grounds.

---