Medical bail is unwarranted where the prisoner’s condition is treatable through specialised custodial care.

The petitioner sought short-term bail on medical grounds in FIR No. 104/2024 registered at Police Station Hajin, Bandipora, under Sections 8/22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution alleged that, on 13 November 2024, the petitioner was apprehended while carrying a blue bag containing 20 bottles of Codeine Phosphate and Triprolidine Hydrochloride syrup, without any valid authority or licence.

After investigation, he was charge-sheeted and charges were framed under Sections 8/22 of the NDPS Act.

The petitioner had earlier been granted interim medical bail by the Trial Court on 11 February 2025, which was extended from time to time, but further extension was declined on 27 December 2025.

He claimed to be suffering from a calcific pancreatic lesion or tumour and asserted that he required FNAC, biopsy and other procedures which could not be properly undertaken while in custody.

The respondents produced health-status reports showing that he had repeatedly been taken to SKIMS, Soura, where diagnostic procedures and treatment were provided; he had also declined or postponed certain procedures, including ERCP, on several occasions.

The biopsy report allegedly showed no malignancy in the pancreas, and the respondents stated that his treatment could continue while he remained in judicial custody.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail on medical and humanitarian grounds notwithstanding the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act?

Whether the petitioner’s medical condition was such that his treatment could not be adequately or safely continued while he remained in judicial custody?

Whether the material on record satisfied the statutory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for grant of bail?

The Court applied Sections 8 and 22 of the NDPS Act, under which unauthorised possession and trafficking of manufactured drugs are punishable offences, and Section 37, which imposes stringent conditions for bail in cases involving commercial quantities or offences carrying the prescribed statutory punishment.

Under Section 37, bail cannot ordinarily be granted unless the Court has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail.

Relying on Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, 2025 (2) Supreme Court 268, and State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo, 2024 (6) Supreme 568, the Court held that the twin conditions under Section 37 are mandatory and that denial of bail is the rule while grant of bail is the exception.

It further relied on Union of India v. Vigin K. Varghese, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2440, which cautioned that a finding of reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty cannot be casually recorded on the basis of prolonged incarceration, likely delay or other considerations without carefully examining the prosecution material.

The Court also referred to Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr., AIR 2015 SC 3703, concerning consideration of the likelihood of repetition of the offence and the character, conduct and antecedents of the accused while deciding bail.

The Court recognised that medical bail may, in an appropriate case, be granted notwithstanding Section 37, but only where the medical condition justifies release and cannot be adequately managed in custody.

The Court found that the petitioner was accused of possessing a commercial quantity of contraband and that the statutory embargo under Section 37 therefore applied.

Although medical bail could theoretically be granted despite that embargo, the medical material did not establish that the petitioner required release from custody.

He had already enjoyed medical interim bail for approximately eleven months, during which he had sufficient opportunity to undergo the recommended tests and procedures.

The health-status reports demonstrated that he had been repeatedly escorted to SKIMS for advanced diagnostics and treatment, including CE-MRI, MRCP and a successful Celiac Plexus Block; the ERCP had been postponed substantially because of his own reluctance or failure to provide consent.

The Court also noted that the biopsy revealed no malignancy and that the petitioner’s treatment could continue at SKIMS, which was situated near the Central Jail, Srinagar.

Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner had not shown that his condition was untreatable or could not be managed under judicial custody, nor had he satisfied the requirements of Section 37.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail application and would not prejudice the merits of the trial.

Nevertheless, the respondents were directed to provide the petitioner with appropriate medical care, ensure his daily examination by the Jail Doctor, and take him for specialised treatment without delay whenever required.