Facts
The petitioner was accused in FIR No. 59/2021 for offenses including attempted murder, dacoity, and kidnapping for ransom involving sharp-edged weapons
Source reference: p. 1-2The investigation alleged the petitioner and co-accused attacked two individuals, causing grievous injuries and the amputation of a victim's hand, and kidnapped a child
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner sought bail under Section 483 of the BNSS (formerly Section 439 CrPC) solely on medical grounds, claiming he suffered from hemiparesis (paralysis) following a 2021 head injury and was unable to perform basic functions
Source reference: p. 2A previous interim bail on similar grounds had been withdrawn in 2024
Source reference: p. 2Issues
1. Whether the petitioner’s current medical condition is sufficiently grave to warrant the grant of bail on medical grounds
Source reference: p. 2-3Law Applied
The Court considered Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) regarding the High Court's power to grant bail
Source reference: p. 1It relied on the legal principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in *Asha Ram v. State of Rajasthan (2017)*, which holds that if an accused's medical condition is described as "stable" and manageable within the prison system, the concession of bail on medical grounds should be declined
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Court analyzed the health status report submitted by the Superintendent of District Jail, Kathua (dated 01.01.2026), which indicated that while the petitioner underwent surgery for a subarachnoid hemorrhage in 2021, his current condition was "doing better except for mild weakness"
Source reference: p. 3The court noted that the petitioner was receiving regular psychiatric and physician consultations, including checkups via video conference, and had been prescribed physical exercises by GMC Kathua
Source reference: p. 3Applying the rule from *Asha Ram*, the court reasoned that since the petitioner was under constant medical observation, did not require inpatient treatment, and lacked clinical features of active paralysis or hemorrhage, his condition did not meet the threshold of a medical emergency or "fatal" ailment required for bail
Source reference: p. 3-4Holding
The Court answered the issue in the negative, holding that no case for interference was made out as the petitioner’s health was stable and being adequately monitored in jail
The bail application was dismissed, and all interim directions were vacated
Source reference: p. 4Original Court PDF
Pawan Kumar v. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir [Bail App No. 375/2025]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in