NDPS Accused Who Missed Scheduled Angiography Stays In Custody As J&K HC Upholds Medical-Bail Denial

On 26 August 2024, police allegedly recovered 36 bottles of Codril-T containing codeine phosphate from a co-accused travelling with the petitioner.

An FIR was registered under Sections 8/22 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, and a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and co-accused.

This Court had granted the petitioner limited medical bail on 6 June 2025, leaving further extension to the trial court’s assessment of his condition and medical records.

The petitioner sought an extension, asserting serious cardiac and other ailments and a need for further cardiac intervention.

The trial court rejected the application after considering two reports from the Standing Medical Board, which stated that the petitioner could remain in custody with close medical supervision and regular cardiology follow-up.

The petitioner challenged that refusal before the High Court.

Article 21 protects an accused’s right to personal liberty and requires that persons in custody receive proper medical care; the State must provide prisoners with necessary medical assistance and facilities (In Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, (2017) 10 SCC 658).

Medical bail requires a balancing of the accused’s health and dignity against the requirements of the criminal proceedings; illness alone does not entitle an accused to release. The court must assess the illness’s nature and seriousness, the treatment required, the risks of continued custody, and the adequacy of available prison or government medical care.

Pawan alias Tamatar v. Ramprakash Pandey, (2002) 9 SCC 166, confirms that sickness does not ipso facto warrant medical bail.

State of U.P. v. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 843, and Ajit Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, SLP (Crl.) No. 1731/2024, order dated 18 March 2025, support refusing medical bail where appropriate treatment and follow-up can be provided in custody or at a suitable hospital.

The prosecution also invoked the restriction on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the alleged commercial quantity.

The Medical Board’s report of 8 January 2026 advised coronary angiography but stated that the petitioner could remain in custody under close supervision and regular cardiology follow-up. Its 10 March 2026 report clarified that the earlier reference to prior stenting resulted from miscommunication and again found custody compatible with close medical supervision and follow-up.

The petitioner’s stated basis for extension—that a stent needed replacement—was therefore undermined by the corrected report; the other reported conditions were assessed as manageable through outpatient follow-up, lifestyle measures, and available prison and referral medical facilities.

Further, although the petitioner had been scheduled for angiography on 25 February 2026, he did not attend and offered no explanation. The Court held that this conduct was inconsistent with his claim that urgent treatment necessitated release.

In light of the Board’s assessment and the available treatment arrangements, the Court found no basis to interfere with the trial court’s decision.

It directed the Jail Authorities to provide the petitioner with regular medical treatment as required and left him at liberty to apply for regular bail.