Medical release from custody permitted despite UAPA bail rejection where continued detention threatened an undertrial's life and health.

A Constitutional Court may, in rare and exceptional cases, direct release from custody under Article 226 even after rejection of regular bail under the UAPA, where continued detention would violate fundamental rights. On the facts, the undertrial's advanced age, serious comorbidities, recurring hospitalisation, and inadequate prison medical facilities showed that further incarceration would endanger life and be incompatible with Article 21. Release on medical grounds was therefore justified, but only subject to strict safeguards to secure the trial and prevent misuse of liberty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, in exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction, can direct release from custody despite rejection of regular bail under the UAPA; (ii) whether continued incarceration of an aged undertrial with serious ailments and recurring hospitalisation would be incompatible with the right to life and health under Article 21; (iii) whether, on the facts, release on medical grounds was justified and, if so, whether conditions were necessary.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in exercise of Article 226 jurisdiction, can direct release from custody despite rejection of regular bail under the UAPA.

Analysis: The constitutional remedy under Article 226 was held not to be ousted merely because bail on merits had been rejected under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The power of Constitutional Courts to protect fundamental rights can be harmonised with statutory bail restrictions, and in rare and exceptional cases a writ court may order release from custody when continued detention would violate Part III rights.

Conclusion: The High Court can, in an appropriate case, direct release from custody even after rejection of regular bail under the UAPA.

Issue (ii): Whether continued incarceration of an aged undertrial with serious ailments and recurring hospitalisation would be incompatible with the right to life and health under Article 21.

Analysis: The medical record showed advanced age, multiple comorbidities, repeated episodes of deterioration, delirium, electrolyte imbalance, urinary infection, brain atrophy, and the need for constant monitoring. The prison hospital was found inadequate for such care, while improvement was seen only in a super-speciality hospital under close supervision. On this material, sending the undertrial back to prison or even to the prison ward of a government hospital was held to carry a real risk of worsening health and endangering life.

Conclusion: Continued custody was held to be incompatible with the undertrial's health condition and likely to endanger his life.

Issue (iii): Whether, on the facts, release on medical grounds was justified and, if so, whether conditions were necessary.

Analysis: Although the latest hospital reports stated that the undertrial was stable and fit for discharge, those reports were read in the context of the entire medical history and did not justify return to prison conditions. The seriousness of the accusations and the need to secure the trial warranted protective conditions to balance liberty with the administration of justice.

Conclusion: Release on medical grounds was justified, but only subject to strict conditions.

Final Conclusion: The undertrial was directed to be released from custody on medical grounds for a limited period, with stringent safeguards to ensure his availability for trial and to prevent misuse of liberty.

Ratio Decidendi: A Constitutional Court may grant release from custody on medical grounds under Article 226 where credible material shows that continued incarceration of an undertrial would be incompatible with health and would endanger life, even if regular bail has been rejected under a special statute, provided suitable conditions are imposed to secure the trial.

---