Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Saika vs Union Territory Of J&K on 24 December, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
(Through Virtual Mode)
CrlA(D) No. 51/2024
Reserved on- 18.12.2024
Pronounced on- 24.12.2024
SAIKA .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Wani Javaid, Advocate.
Vs
Union Territory of J&K ..... Respondents
through Police Station Pulwama &
Anr.
Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG with
Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting counsel
Mr. Faheem Nissar Shah, GA.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE.
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Sekhri-J
01. This appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Act,
2008 (NIA) has been directed against order dated 20.07.2024 passed by
I/C Special Judge Designated under NIA Act, Pulwama (“trial court” for
short), vide which the short term bail, on account of medical exigency, in
favour of the appellant came to be withdrawn.
02. An overview of the background facts is that appellant came to be
arrested on 05.12.2018 in FIR No. 288/2018 for offences under Sections
302, 120-B RPC, 7/27 Arms Act and 16, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of ULA(P)
Act. The appellant came to be charged by the trial court for the aforesaid
offences. During the currency of the trial, father of the appellant laid a
2 CrlA(D) No. 51/2024
motion before the trial court for grant of short term bail on account of
medical exigency on the ground that the appellant since the date of her
arrest was gripped by serious health snags, but she was being provided
normal medication by the jail authorities and not proper medication.
Learned trial court, in order to ascertain truthfulness of the pleas sent for
the health status of the appellant from District Jail Karnal and on the basis
of medical report submitted by the jail authorities, appellant came to be
admitted to short term bail by the trial court for a period of one month,
vide order dated 28.05.2024, which came to be extended till 20.07.2024.
03. Case of the appellant is that interceding the period of short term
bail, her health deteriorated, she was referred by the Cardiologist of
SKIMS Soura to the Department of Cardiology AIIMS New Delhi for
proper medical observation and on the advice of the doctors, she laid a
motion for extension of medical bail before the trial court, however,
learned trial court, vide impugned order dismissed the application,
withdrew the concession of bail and she was committed to District Jail
Karnal.
04. The appellant is aggrieved of the impugned order primarily on the
ground that learned trial court has failed to appreciate her health status
and impugned order is violative of her fundamental right to health.
05. Having heard the rival contentions, we have carefully gone through
the record.
06. This Court at the motion stage, vide order dated 02.08.2024
directed the respondents to take the appellant from District Jail Karnal for
3 CrlA(D) No. 51/2024
medical evaluation to AIIMS Delhi or any other medical institute, with a
request to the hospital authorities to furnish a report with respect to the
treatment to be administered to the appellant and whether same would
require institutionalized treatment in the hospital or whether same can be
administered in the jail itself. Learned counsel for the appellant has also
placed on record latest medical report of the appellant submitted by the
jail authorities on 06.11.2024 before the trial court.
07. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 02.08.2024, Sr.
Superintendent of Police, District Jail Pulwama made a request and a
Medical Board came to be constituted by the Post-Graduate Institute of
Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh and appellant
came to be examined by the Board comprised of 05 doctors on
27.08.2024, 09.09.2024, 17.09.2024, 30.09.2024, 03.10.2024 and
07.10.2024. As per the Medical Board Report, the appellant came to be
examined in detail by the Board Members with reports of fresh
investigations. As per the said report, all the investigations came out to be
normal and there was no abnormality detected on echocardiography. As
per the Psychiatry evaluation, no clear-cut features of active
psychopathology in the protocol has been observed by the Board. As per
Gynecological assessment, there is no history of irregular cycles or any
other gynecological complaint other than mild dysmenorrheal, for which
appellant has been advised medication therapy and as per
ophthalmological opinion, the appellant has been advised to use glasses
for refractive error. Pertinently, in the final impression/assessment of the
4 CrlA(D) No. 51/2024
Medical Board, as per the diagnosis and current status of the appellant,
treatment can be provided in the jail itself and no inpatient treatment is
required. A perusal of another medical report dated 29.08.2024 on the
record reveals that appellant is regularly taking medications as prescribed
by various consultants including Psychiatrist, Cardiologist, Physician and
Gynecologist and she is also taking Ayurvedic medications for diabetes
on her own. As per the said report, appellant is being regularly monitored
and evaluated by jail doctors along with visiting specialists on monthly
basis.
08. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Asha Ram vs. State of Rajasthan;
2017 (1) RCR, Crl. 1016 SC, denied bail to the accused in a similar fact
situation. Relevant excerpt of the judgment reads as below:-
“the medical condition of the petitioner has been described as stable,
and, as such there is no question of extending him the concession of
bail on medical grounds”
09. It is evident from latest medical report of the Medical Board
comprised of five doctors that health status of the appellant is not only
being regularly monitored by the jail authorities, but she is being
provided proper medical treatment from PGIMER, Chandigarh, a premier
health institution of the country and her condition is stable.
10. In view of the above, since health condition of the appellant is
being regularly monitored by the jail authorities and as per the opinion of
the Medical Board, all the investigations of the appellant are normal and
as per the diagnosis and current status of the appellant, treatment can be
provided to her in the jail itself and there is no requirement of inpatient
5 CrlA(D) No. 51/2024
treatment, we do not find any illegality and impropriety in the impugned
order.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is found devoid of
merit, hence dismissed.
(Rajesh Sekhri) (Tashi Rabstan)
Judge Chief Justice
Jammu
24.12.2024
Abinash
Whether the judgment is speaking? Yes
Whether the judgment is reportable? Yes