Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

% 13.12.2022 CRL.M.(BAIL) 713/2022 (for interim bail)

1. This is an interim bail application filed on behalf of the accused. The petitioner seeks bail on the ground of his medical condition during the pendency of the proceedings.

2. In the application it has been stated that the petitioner is aged about 59 years and is having various ailments relating to spine and back for which the applicant is under constant medical supervision. The applicant has referred to the MRI conducted on 03.02.2021 and has further stated that on account of his stay in jail his ailments have worsened as he has not been able to get any proper treatment.

5. Sh. Zoheb Hossian, learned Special counsel has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no ground of interim bail made out as the condition of the petitioner is stable and therefore the interim bail application may be dismissed and the bail application may be heard on merits.

6. Per contra, Sh. Siddharth Luthra and Sh. Siddharth Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that the petitioner/applicant is aged about 59 years and was arrested on 14.03.2022 and is in judicial custody since 21.03.2022. It has been submitted that the applicant apart from general ailments is suffering from serious lumber pain. The petitioner was diagnosed with PIVD (Prolapsed Intervertebral Disk), LCS (Lumbar Canal Stenosis) L-3, L-4, L-5 and L5-S1. It has been submitted that on account of herniated discs and degenerative disease, the petitioner had nerve compression resulting in immense pain and stiffness of limbs. Sh. Siddharth Aggarwal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even before the applicant was arrested, he remained hospitalised at Bombay hospital in Indore in September 2021 and has been under constant medical supervision. The prescriptions have been placed on record. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the applicant is able to walk only a few steps without any support.

9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this examination was conducted after rejection of the interim bail application of this Court on 06.09.2022. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that there are substantial changes in the circumstances necessitating to approach this Court for grant of interim bail.

10. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the in their earnest, the jail authorities tried to get the MRI/LS being carried out. However, the date i.e. fixed for MRI is 08.12.2023. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that while the Jail authorities have taken the appellant for further examination but till date no neurosurgery evaluation has been conducted. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even the request for preponement of the MRI has not been accepted by the concerned hospital. It has also been submitted that the petitioner was supposed to be taken for medical examination on 17.11.2022, however, the same was cancelled. The petitioner though was taken on 24.11.2022 for neurosurgery evaluation however the same was not conducted as there was no MRI report. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been waiting for neurosurgery review since July 2022 and still the same has not been conducted. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that therefore it is in the best interest of the health of the petitioner that he may be released on interim bail for a sufficient time so that to get his neurology medical examinations conducted.

17. It is also pertinent to mention here that after earlier interim bail application was dismissed by this Court in September, 2022, the authorities tried for further neurological evaluation. But the date for MRI is given of December, 2023. Hence, this Court cannot ask the petitioner to wait for further one year only for advance neurological test. This court also directs the authorities to look into the matter with promptness to ensure that such long dates are not given for the medical examination or the prisoners. This Court considers that the concerned authorities are required to take immediate steps and develop an effective and adequate mechanism. It is also to be noted that there is no allegation of tampering with evidence or abuse of process by the petitioner in the prison.