Facts
The appellant, detained in judicial custody, challenged the order dated 1 August 2026 by which the Special Court, NIA, rejected his application for interim bail on medical grounds under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
Source reference: p.1, paras 2–3He was charge-sheeted in FIR No. RC-29/2023/NIA/DLI for offences under Sections 120B and 387 of the IPC and Sections 13, 18, 18A, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the UAPA.
Source reference: p.2, para 6The prosecution alleged that he was associated with an ISIS-related conspiracy, participated in extortion for ISIS, circulated its messages, took an oath of allegiance, and collected money from businessmen for ISIS-related activities.
Source reference: pp.2–5, paras 7–8The trial was at the stage of arguments on charge, and the appellant had been incarcerated for approximately two years and nine months.
Source reference: p.5, paras 9, 14(iv)The appellant was suffering from umbilical hernia, bronchial asthma and Type-II diabetes, and DDU Hospital had advised surgery.
Source reference: p.5, paras 10–12Issues
Whether the appellant, notwithstanding the allegations under the IPC and UAPA and his custody, should be granted interim custody bail to undergo surgery and medical treatment for umbilical hernia?
Source reference: pp.5–8, paras 9–10, 17–21Whether the appellant should be permitted to undergo such treatment at a private hospital of his choice in Delhi/NCR or in Bombay/Maharashtra?
Source reference: pp.6–8, paras 14–21What safeguards and conditions should govern the appellant’s medical custody bail?
Source reference: p.8–9, para 22Law Applied
The Court exercised appellate jurisdiction under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
Source reference: p.1, para 2The prosecution case arose under Sections 120B and 387 of the IPC and Sections 13, 18, 18A, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the UAPA.
Source reference: p.2, para 6The governing principle applied was that the medical condition of a person in custody may justify interim or custody bail, and a medically unwell accused cannot be prevented from obtaining treatment at a private hospital at his own expense, although the Court may impose territorial, custodial and communicational restrictions to address security and flight or network-related concerns.
Source reference: pp.7–9, paras 18–22Reasoning
The Court expressly confined its consideration to the request for interim bail on medical grounds and declined to make findings on the merits of the allegations or the pending proceedings concerning the appellant’s arrest and proposed pardon.
Source reference: p.7, paras 16–18It accepted that the appellant required surgery for umbilical hernia and that his treatment at DDU Hospital did not preclude him from seeking treatment at a private hospital at his own expense.
Source reference: p.7, para 19However, in view of the prosecution’s allegation that the appellant had an extensive network in Padgha and neighbouring areas of Maharashtra, the Court considered treatment in Bombay/Maharashtra unsafe or impracticable at that stage.
Source reference: p.8, para 20It therefore balanced the appellant’s medical needs against custodial and security concerns by permitting treatment only at a private hospital in Delhi/NCR, while retaining him under custody and imposing restrictions on family accompaniment and communications.
Source reference: pp.8–9, para 22Holding
The appeal was disposed of by granting the appellant custody bail for 30 days to undergo medical treatment at a private hospital of his choice in Delhi/NCR, at his own expense.
The period would commence from admission to the hospital; if he was declared fit before expiry of 30 days, he was to be returned to jail, while any extension would depend on medical advice.
Source reference: pp.8–9, para 22(iii)He could be accompanied by up to two immediate family members, namely his spouse or children, but could not communicate with other relatives, acquaintances, or persons named in the charge-sheet.
Source reference: p.9, para 22(iv)On expiry of the custody-bail period, he was to be shifted back to jail.
Source reference: p.9, para 22(v)The Court clarified that its observations would not affect any other pending proceedings.
Source reference: p.9, para 23Acts & Sections Cited
7 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
National Investigation Agency Act, 20081
Indian Penal Code, 18601
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 19675
Original Court PDF
Farhan Ansar Suse (In Jc)vsNational Investigation Agency & Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
