Court Rules Mere Illness Does Not Guarantee Bail; Emphasizes Adequate Medical Care in Custody and Condemns Absence from Scheduled Medical Procedure
In a significant ruling on October 31, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed the petition of Sajad Ahmad Sheikh seeking extension of medical bail in a narcotic drugs case involving the recovery of 36 bottles of Codril-T containing Codeine Phosphate. The decision, delivered by Justice Rajesh Sekhri, upheld the trial court's rejection of the bail extension, affirming the principle that the mere existence of illness does not entitle an accused to bail.
The petitioner had initially been granted limited medical bail on June 6, 2025, due to his alleged serious cardiac condition alongside other ailments such as Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, and fatty liver disease. However, upon seeking an extension of this bail, citing the need to replace a cardiac stent and concerns over inadequate prison medical facilities, the trial court refused the application. The petitioner's claim was undermined by a corrected report from the Standing Medical Board, which clarified that no stenting procedure had actually been performed-a critical factual correction that significantly weakened his case.
The High Court emphasized the established legal position that, while Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to personal liberty and proper medical care for those in custody, the grant of bail on medical grounds requires a careful balance. This includes consideration of the seriousness of the illness, the availability of medical treatment within the prison system, the necessity for specialized treatment outside custody, and the overall circumstances of the case. The Court noted that the petitioner's other medical issues were manageable through outpatient care and lifestyle modifications available within the jail medical setup and referral hospitals.
Moreover, the Court took serious note of the petitioner's conduct, highlighting that despite being scheduled for coronary angiography on February 25, 2026, he failed to report for the procedure without providing any explanation. This conduct was deemed inconsistent with the claim of a grave medical emergency warranting bail. The Court reiterated that medical bail is not an open-ended privilege and can be revoked if the medical purpose for its grant lapses.
In its judgment, the Court also cited several Supreme Court precedents reinforcing the principle that not every ailment entitles an accused to medical bail. The State is obliged to provide adequate medical treatment in custody, and bail should only be granted when the prison medical facilities are insufficient to cater to the accused's health needs.
The Court concluded by directing the jail authorities to continue providing regular medical treatment to the petitioner and acknowledged his liberty to apply for regular bail if desired. The petitioner's application was dismissed, and the order of the trial court was upheld.
This judgment reinforces the judiciary's approach to balancing the rights of accused persons with the imperatives of criminal justice and public interest, especially in cases involving serious charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Bottom Line:
NDPS Act - Medical bail/extension of medical bail - Mere existence of illness does not by itself entitle an accused to bail - Where Standing Medical Board certifies that accused can be kept in custody under close medical supervision and regular cardiology follow-up, and accused fails to avail scheduled medical procedure, rejection of extension of medical bail is proper even in case involving serious ailments.
Statutory provision(s): Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Sections 8, 22, 29, 37; Constitution of India Article 21
