Accused suffering from mouth cancer is entitled to regular bail on medical grounds.

The applicant filed a first bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) regarding his arrest for offenses under Sections 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution alleged that in 2021, the complainant and her friend transferred ₹3,00,000 to one Sushmita Tandon based on a promise of securing government jobs as Data Entry Operators.

When the jobs were not secured and the money was not returned, the applicant and another individual allegedly promised future recruitment instead of a refund.

The applicant was arrested on March 8, 2026.

The applicant argued he was falsely implicated, noting that the money was transferred to Tandon and that he suffers from mouth cancer requiring urgent medical attention unavailable in jail.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, given the nature of the allegations and his medical condition?

Section 483 of the BNSS for the grant of regular bail.

The Court considered the balance between the severity of the offense under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC and the accused's right to life and health.

Conditions for bail adherence derived from Sections 209 and 269 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) regarding non-appearance and abuse of liberty.

The Court noted that the charge sheet had not yet been filed, but evaluated the period of detention since March 8, 2026.

The Court took particular cognizance of the applicant’s medical condition, specifically mouth cancer, and the submission that adequate treatment was unavailable within the prison facility.

It observed that according to the complainant, the financial transactions were primarily linked to the co-accused, Sushmita Tandon, rather than the applicant.

Reasoning that the trial was likely to take significant time to conclude, the Court determined that the applicant's health requirements and the specific facts of the case warranted the exercise of discretionary power to grant bail, provided strict conditions were met to ensure trial participation.

The holding was conditioned upon the applicant: (i) not seeking adjournments during witness evidence, (ii) appearing personally or through counsel on all dates, and (iii) appearing in person for charge framing and statements under Section 351 of the BNSS.

The Court ordered that any default would permit the trial court to treat the absence as an abuse of liberty and initiate proceedings under Sections 209 or 269 of the BNS.