Court Denies Further Bail Extension for Surgery; Orders Hospitalization with Strict Conditions.

The petitioner requested a three-month extension of interim bail due to a knee injury requiring surgery, following previous extensions. The ED opposed the request, citing concerns over prolonged bail. The HC denied further extension, ordering hospitalization until discharge with restricted phone use and visitation. AIIMS was tasked with verifying medical documents, allowing the petitioner to seek bail extension based on AIIMS' medical opinion. This decision underscores the balance between the right to medical treatment and preventing misuse of interim bail extensions.

---

---

Issues involved: Extension of interim bail on medical grounds.

Summary:
The petitioner sought an extension of interim bail due to medical reasons, specifically related to a knee injury. The petitioner had initially been granted interim bail for six weeks, which was extended for an additional six weeks. The petitioner experienced complications with his knee, requiring surgery. Despite the need for a three to six months recovery period, the petitioner requested a three-month extension of the interim bail. The ED opposed the extension, citing the prolonged nature of the petitioner's bail on medical grounds. The Court acknowledged the right to medical treatment for all individuals, including accused persons, but expressed concerns about setting a precedent for repeated extensions of interim bail. Consequently, the Court decided not to extend the interim bail further. Instead, it ordered the petitioner to remain hospitalized until discharged, with restrictions on phone use and visitation rights. The medical documents were to be verified by AIIMS, and the petitioner was permitted to seek an extension of interim bail based on AIIMS' medical opinion.

This judgment highlights the balance between an accused's right to medical treatment and the potential for misuse of repeated interim bail extensions.

---