SAJAD AHMAD SHEIKH vs UNION TERRITORY THROUGH POLICE STATION CHANAPORA AND ANOTHER (POLICE / HOME)

1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND
LADAKH AT SRINAGAR

Bail App No. 96/2026
CrlM No. 813/2026


Reserved on: - 29.10.2026
Pronounced on: - 31.10.2026
Uploaded on: - 31.10.2026

Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: - full

SAJAD AHMAD SHEIKH
….. Appellant/petitioner(s)

Through: -

Mr. Sajad Ashraf, Advocate

V/s
UT THROUGH POLICE STATION CHANAPORA AND ANR.

….. Respondent(s)
Through: -
Ms. Shaila Shameem, AC vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG


CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE



JUDGMENT

01 . Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 12.05.2026, passed by
learned Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Srinagar [the “trial Court” for
short], whereby his application for extension of medical bail came to
be rejected.
02. As the prosecution case would unfurl, on 26.08.2024, the Naka
party intercepted three persons travelling in a vehicle from Mehjoor
Nagar to Budshah Nagar and on their search, 36 Bottles of Codril-T
containing Codeine Phosphate, a manufactured drug under NDPS Act
came to be recovered from accused Aniket Kumar. FIR No. 31/2024,
came to be registered at Police Station, Chanapora for offences under
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

2

Section 8/22 read with Section 29 of NDPS Act and the investigation
culminated in the presentation of charge sheet against the petitioner
and co-accused.
03 . The petitioner approached this Court for medical bail on the
ground that he was suffering with serious cardiac condition, Type-2
Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, fatty liver and associated ailments
and this Court vide order dated 06.06.2025, while granting limited
indulgence on the medical ground to the petitioner, left it open to the
trial Court to examine further extension on the basis of his medical
condition and the medical record.
04 . On the expiry of four months, the petitioner approached the trial
Court for extension of bail primarily contending that as per the latest
cardiologist examination, his cardiac stent was required to be
replaced, but procedure could not be carried out because his pulse rate
was above the average limit. According to the petitioner, the prison
facility was not sufficiently equipped to provide the level of
specialized care that he requires and he apprehended that any failure
to provide timely treatment may lead to irreversible complications.
05 . The bail plea of the petitioner was opposed by the prosecution
primarily on the ground that he was involved in a case of commercial
quantity of manufacture drug, which was squarely covered by the bar
contained in Section 37 NDPS Act. According to the prosecution, the
medical record annexed by the petitioner by its own showing would
not indicate any acute emergency or surgical urgency which could not
be addressed within the existing medical infrastructure of the jail.
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

3

06 . Pertinently, the prosecution opposed medical bail of the
petitioner on the ground that he failed to make use of the bail granted
by this Court in his favour for medical treatment, as the prescriptions
placed on record relate only to his scattered visits in June, August and
October, 2025 and it did not disclose any fixed date for any surgical
intervention.
07 . Learned trial Court rejected bail plea of the petitioner
predominantly holding that the Standing Medical Board having had
the benefit of the entire record and personal examination of the
petitioner on two separate occasions recorded that petitioner , subject to
the safeguards of close medical supervision and regular cardiology
follow-up in the Super Specialty Hospital, can be kept in custody.
08 . Petitioner is aggrieved of the observations of learned trial Court
primarily on the ground that both the reports dated 08.01.2026 and
10.03.2026, submitted by the Medical Board, constituted on the
directions of learned trial Court, for his assessment, reveal that he is
suffering with serious cardiac ailments and he requires coronary
angiography, regular cardiology follow-ups, continuous monitoring
and specialized treatment.
09 . According to the petitioner, learned trial Court has failed to
appreciate the two medical reports submitted by the Standing Medical
Board in its correct perspective that there was continuous
deterioration in his health condition.
10 . Petitioner has prayed for quashment of the impugned order and
extension of medical bail already granted by this Court.
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

4

11 . The plea has been opposed on the other side by the respondents
primarily on the ground of gravity of the charge and application of
Section 37 of NDPS Act.
12 . According to the respondents, petitioner is receiving proper
medical treatment and Jail Authorities are providing all necessary
medical facilities as per the medical advice and at any stage if
specialized treatment would be required, he can be referred to a
Government Hospital or any Medical Institution under judicial escort.
It is contention of the respondents that medical condition of the
petitioner does not warrant his release on medical bail.
13 . Having heard the rival submissions, I have gone through the
record.
14 . While Mr. Sajad Ashraf, learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon an order dated 06.06.2025 passed by this Court in Bail
App No. 155/2024, to reiterate the grounds urged in the memo of
present petition, Ms. Shaila, learned assisting counsel appearing vice
Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned Sr. AAG, has reiterated the stand of the
respondents/prosecution in the reply affidavit.
15. There is no dispute to the settled position of law that right to
personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, requires that accused in custody receives proper medical care
and treatment.
16 . Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re Inhuman Conditions in 1382
Prisons; (2017) 10 SCC 658 , held that providing medical assistance
and facilities to inmates in prisons needs no reaffirmation. The right to
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

5

health is undoubtedly a human right and all State Governments should
concentrate on making this a reality for all the prisoners.
17 . In view of the above, a bail application on medical grounds
must be decided by the Court by balancing the health and dignity of
an accused against requirement of a criminal proceeding. However, it
is equally trite in law that grant of bail on medical grounds primarily
depends upon the nature and seriousness of illness, medical facilities
available during the custody, necessity for specialized treatment and
overall circumstances of a case.
18 . The existence of illness, by itself, does not, entitle an accused to
bail. Court is required to examine whether medical condition of
accused genuinely necessitates his release from custody or whether
the required treatment could be provided through a prison hospital or
an appropriate Government specialized medical institution.
19 . It appears that learned trial Court, during the currency of the
bail application, in addition to the medical reports submitted on the
rival sides, sought a report regarding medical status of the petitioner
from SMHS, Hospital, Srinagar and received two reports dated
08.01.2026 and 10.03.2026 of the Standing Medical Board of
Government SMHS, Hospital, Srinagar.
20. The Medical report dated 08.01.2026, of the Standing Medical
Board recorded that petitioner was complaining of chest pain on
exertion, he was advised to undergo coronary angiography to rule out
blockage in vessels other than those said to have been earlier stented
and he was already dated for the procedure. The Medical Board,
however, specifically recorded that he could be kept in custody under
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

6

close medical supervision and regular cardiology follow-up at the
Super Specialty Hospital, Shireen Bagh.
21 . Pertinently, the said Board in its reviewed report dated
10.03.2026, clarified that clinical examination of the petitioner on
07.03.2026 revealed only angina on effort, for which he needs
coronary angiography. Significantly the Board expressly stated that
the reference in its earlier report that petitioner had undergone stenting
was a result of miscommunication and it certified that petitioner could
be kept in custody under close medical supervision and regular
cardiology follow up.
22 . The only ground urged by the petitioner before the trial Court,
for extension of medical bail, was that his cardiac stent was required
to be replaced and the procedure could not be carried out due to his
elevated pulse rate. Learned trial Court on examination of the
aforesaid medical reports, particularly the modified report dated
10.03.2026, has rightly concluded that once the Standing Medical
Board has on its own recorded that no stenting was, in fact carried out,
the very factual edifice of the ground urged by the petitioner had
collapsed and rest of the ailments complained by the petitioner as per
the laboratory reports, consultation papers and prescriptions of the
consultants are amenable to management on out-patient, follow up
basis and lifestyle modification and they did not lie beyond the reach
of the medical set up at Central Jail or of the referral linkages
presently available with SMHS Hospital and Super Specialty
Hospital.
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

7

23 . Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pawan alias Tamatar Vs.
Ramprakash Pandey; (2002) 9 SCC 166 , noted that every sickness
does not ipso facto entitle an accused to medical bail.
24 . Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of UP Vs. Gayatri Prasad
Prajapati; 2020 SCC Online SC 843 , set aside order of the High
Court grating bail to the accused on medical grounds by holding that
there was no satisfaction recorded by the High Court that treatment
offered to the accused was not adequate and he required any further
treatment by any particular medical institute for which it was
necessary to release him on interim bail on medical grounds.
25 . Again, Supreme Court in Ajit Singh Vs. State of Utrakhand
vide order dated 18.03.2025, in SLP (Crl) No. 1731/2024, set aside
order of the High Court of Utrakhand at Nanital, granting bail to the
accused on medical grounds, on the ground that accused could be
given medical attention for his condition and follow up treatment as
required either before AIIMS New Delhi or any suitable hospital in
Utrakhand.
26 . Having regard to the aforesaid, it is manifest that a chronic
illness or physical discomfort or a condition requiring periodic
medical review would not automatically justify release of an accused.
The Court has to consider the actual severity of the illness, the
prescribed treatment, the risks associated with continued custody and
availability of appropriate medical care.
27 . A bail plea on medical ground can be rejected by a Court if it is
satisfied that accused can receive appropriate treatment during the
custody period and the prison authorities are able to provide necessary
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

8

medication, monitoring, investigation, specialized consultations or
hospital admission. Mere assertions regarding ailments, unsupported
by medical records or appropriate medical assessment is not sufficient
to justify release of an accused on medical grounds. The absence of
adequate medical evidence is particularly relevant where the accused
alleges that he requires urgent or specialized treatment but fails to
establish the medical necessity for his release.
28 . Another aspect of the matter which caught attention of the trial
Court is conduct based.
29 . As per the report of Standing Medical Board, petitioner was
dated for coronary angiography on 25.02.2026, but he did not report
in the Hospital for the procedure. The petitioner neither in his
application before the trial Court, nor in the present petition has given
any explanation for failure on his part to report for the procedure on
the date given by the Medical Board. This Court finds itself in
agreement with the observation of learned trial Court that petitioner
cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath by urging
on the one hand that his cardiac condition was so grave which requires
immediate attention and his consequent release from custody and on
the other hand absented himself for the procedure, scheduled by the
Medical Board for the condition. Trial Court rightly observed that
medical bail is not an open-ended liberty to be retained and the
medical purpose for which it was granted is allowed to lapse.
30 . For what has been discussed, observed and analyzed, I do not
find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order, passed by the
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document

9

trial Court. Hence present bail application is dismissed and impugned
order is upheld.
31 . However, it is directed that Jail Authorities shall provide
regular medical treatment to the petitioner as and when required and
petitioner shall also be at liberty to apply for regular bail, if he so
desires.
32 . Disposed of.
(RAJESH SEKHRI)
JUDGE


SRINAGAR
31.10.2026
“Mohammad Yasin Dar”
Whether the Judgment is reportable: Yes
Whether the Judgment is speaking: Yes
Mohammad Yaseen Dar
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document