Interim bail granted on medical grounds for cataract surgery emphasizing health over offense gravity

The AP HC granted interim bail to an accused person on medical grounds to undergo necessary medical tests and treatment under personal physician supervision. The court held that health and well-being are paramount considerations regardless of offense gravity, emphasizing that custody during investigation should not be punitive. The court recognized every individual's inherent right to comprehensive medical care and ruled that interim bail on medical grounds should not be restricted only to life-threatening situations. Given the petitioner's undisputed medical condition requiring cataract surgery on the right eye, the court granted interim bail solely for medical examination and treatment purposes, subject to specified conditions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to interim bail on medical grounds.
2. Adequacy of medical facilities in jail.
3. The necessity of specific medical tests and treatments.
4. Allegations and counterarguments regarding the severity of the petitioner’s health condition.
5. Legal precedents and their applicability to the case.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Interim Bail on Medical Grounds:
The petitioner, aged 73, sought interim bail under Sections 437 and 439 r/w Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to undergo necessary medical tests and treatments. The petitioner was detained on 08.09.2023 and arrested on 09.09.2023 under multiple sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner argued that his health was deteriorating due to inadequate medical facilities in jail and required medical supervision by his personal physician.

2. Adequacy of Medical Facilities in Jail:
The petitioner’s medical reports indicated several health issues, including Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy. The petitioner argued that the jail facilities were insufficient for his medical needs, citing a medical report dated 14.10.2023. The respondent countered that the petitioner was receiving adequate medical care in jail and his condition was stable, as evidenced by his weight increase from 66 kg to 67.5 kg.

3. Necessity of Specific Medical Tests and Treatments:
The petitioner’s medical reports recommended several tests, including Complete Blood Picture, Renal Function Test, Liver Function Tests, Serum Electrolytes, Coagulation Profile, HbA1C, Complete Urine Examination, ECG, X-Ray, Chest, and 2D Echo. The petitioner sought to undertake these tests from his chosen medical team. Additionally, the petitioner required cataract surgery for his right eye, as advised by the LV Prasad Eye Institute and other medical professionals.

4. Allegations and Counterarguments Regarding the Severity of the Petitioner’s Health Condition:
The respondent argued that the petitioner’s condition was not severe and he was receiving necessary medical care in jail. However, the petitioner’s counsel contended that the petitioner’s health issues, including the need for cataract surgery and management of chronic conditions, warranted interim bail for proper medical treatment. The court noted that the petitioner’s medical conditions were genuine and required attention, especially the cataract surgery for his right eye.

5. Legal Precedents and Their Applicability to the Case:
The court referred to several legal precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Satyendar Kumar Jain vs. Directorate of Enforcement, which emphasized the right of an individual to choose their medical treatment. The court also considered the decision in Pt. Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India, which highlighted the importance of preserving human life, whether the individual is innocent or a criminal. The court found these precedents applicable and relevant to the petitioner’s case.

Conclusion:
The court granted interim bail to the petitioner for four weeks to undergo necessary medical treatment, including cataract surgery for his right eye. The conditions for bail included furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, undergoing treatment at a hospital of his choice at his expense, and providing details of the treatment to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Rajamahendravaram. The petitioner was required to surrender before the Superintendent on or before 28.11.2023. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s health and well-being were of paramount importance, and the decision was made with a humanitarian perspective.

---