Is Medical Condition grounds for granting Bail in India?

Bail is a legal mechanism that allows an accused person to be released from custody pending trial, subject to certain conditions. In India, the right to bail is not absolute; it depends on the specific facts of each case, the nature of the offense, and the discretion of the court. One of the most significant humanitarian grounds on which bail is often sought is the medical condition of the accused.

The purpose of bail is to strike a balance between two fundamental objectives: protecting an individual’s liberty until proven guilty and ensuring their presence during investigation and trial. The essence of bail lies in preventing undue hardship or injustice to an accused while maintaining the sanctity of the judicial process.

When an accused person suffers from a serious illness, whether pre-existing or developed during incarceration, they may seek bail on humanitarian and constitutional grounds. The courts expect such claims to be substantiated through credible medical evidence, and the illness must be of such severity that it cannot be adequately treated in custody or could become life-threatening if neglected. Indian courts have repeatedly recognized that the right to health is intrinsic to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, and that medical bail serves as a mechanism to safeguard that right, even in the context of criminal proceedings.

Legal and Constitutional Framework Governing Medical Bail in India

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides the legislative foundation for granting bail in India.

• Section 437 empowers Magistrates to grant bail in non-bailable offenses on “special grounds,” which include illness or medical incapacity.
• Section 439 empowers the Sessions Courts and High Courts to grant bail in non-bailable offenses, particularly where exceptional circumstances exist.
• Section 436 covers bailable offenses, while Section 436A provides relief to undertrials who have undergone detention for half the maximum sentence prescribed, which often becomes relevant in cases of prolonged illness or infirmity.

Constitutional principles further strengthen this framework. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which implicitly includes the right to adequate medical care. Article 14 mandates equality before the law, requiring humane treatment for all individuals, including those in custody. Moreover, the Directive Principles of State Policy under Articles 39(e) and 39(f) direct the State to safeguard health and ensure that citizens are not forced into conditions detrimental to their well-being.

Even under stringent special laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), courts have acknowledged that medical emergencies constitute “exceptional circumstances” justifying bail particularly when prison healthcare facilities are unable to provide adequate treatment.

Granting bail on medical grounds is not a mechanical process; it entails the exercise of judicial discretion guided by constitutional and legal principles. Courts carefully examine the nature and severity of the illness, the adequacy of medical facilities available in custody, and whether treatment or supervision outside prison is indispensable. In doing so, the judiciary upholds an individual’s fundamental right to health, ensuring that incarceration does not compromise this right.

The Grey Area: Misuse and Safeguards

While medical bail is rooted in constitutional morality and the recognition of the fundamental right to health, the legal system remains alert to its potential misuse. Accused persons may sometimes invoke medical grounds to obtain release when they may not otherwise be entitled to bail. This grey area places a significant responsibility on courts to strike a balance ensuring that the right to health is effectively protected without allowing such relief to become a loophole for evading the criminal process. The judiciary’s role, therefore, is not one of compassion but of impartial application of law, ensuring that fundamental rights are upheld within the bounds of justice.

To prevent misuse, courts typically order independent medical examinations by government hospitals or court-appointed medical boards. They may also direct periodic submission of medical reports, impose stringent conditions (such as restricting travel or requiring the accused to remain under medical supervision), and require the accused to surrender their passport to prevent absconding This dual approach – safeguarding the right to health while curbing potential misuse, reflects the delicate balance that courts strive to maintain in medical bail cases. In practice, however, the success of this balance has been uneven. While courts have tightened scrutiny over medical documents and increasingly rely on reports from government hospitals to verify claims, instances of accused persons exaggerating ailments or seeking prolonged hospitalization to delay proceedings still surface. These cases, though not rampant, expose the vulnerabilities in implementation rather than in judicial intent. Thus, while the dual approach is conceptually sound, its effectiveness ultimately depends on vigilant enforcement and periodic judicial review to ensure that genuine medical needs are protected without opening doors to misuse.

Factors Considered by Courts in Granting Medical Bail

When adjudicating bail applications on medical grounds, courts weigh a range of factors:

1. Severity of the illness and its impact on the accused’s ability to survive or recover in custody.
2. Availability and adequacy of medical facilities in prison, and whether treatment outside custody is indispensable.
3. Risk of life-threatening consequences if treatment is delayed or unavailable.
4. Possibility of recovery under specialized or family care.
5. Likelihood of misuse or flight risk by the accused.

This scrutiny ensures that medical bail serves its intended purpose as a measure of relief, not evasion.

Procedure and Judicial Approach to Medical Bail

Seeking bail on medical grounds requires an applicant to demonstrate that continued detention poses a serious threat to their health or life. Under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an accused may move for bail supported by credible medical documentation certificates from government hospitals, diagnostic reports, and, where applicable, jail medical records. In cases where the applicant is already incarcerated, reports from prison doctors and recommendations from specialist institutions gain particular evidentiary weight. Affidavits from family members or sureties further strengthen the plea by assuring adherence to bail conditions and availability of post-release medical care.

Courts, however, adopt a balanced approach. While the prosecution often resists such applications by citing adequate prison healthcare or the risk of absconding, judicial discretion turns on humanitarian and constitutional considerations. In Rameshwara Bawa v. Serious Fraud Investigation Office, the court underscored that denying bail to a person suffering from a life-threatening illness offends Article 21, as incarceration without proper treatment constitutes cruel and inhuman deprivation. This interpretation laid the foundation for reading “special grounds” under Sections 437 and 439 CrPC in a purposive and compassionate manner.

The principle was reaffirmed in Naresh Goyal v. Directorate of Enforcement (2023) 298 DLT 444, where the Delhi High Court granted bail to a 72-year-old cancer patient under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The court held that advanced age coupled with serious ailments constitutes an exceptional circumstance that overrides statutory restrictions, recognizing that procedural rigour must yield when custody itself endangers life.

Similarly, the Bombay High Court in Abhay Narendra Lodha v. Directorate of Enforcement Bail Application No 2838 of 2024 took a liberal view of the term “sick or infirm,” noting that medical vulnerability cannot be narrowly interpreted in financial offence cases. The applicant’s seizures and history of brain haemorrhage were found to justify release, with the court emphasising that the law must protect genuine medical needs, not punish them.

Courts have also broadened the understanding of illness to include mental health. In Ashish Balkrishna Gupta v. State of Maharashtra, bail was granted considering depression, diabetes, and severe mental stress, the court observing that prolonged incarceration could aggravate existing ailments and impede recovery. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahesh Raut v. Union of India (2025) crystallises this humanitarian trajectory. Granting interim medical bail to the Bhima Koregaon accused suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, the Court held that even under stringent anti-terror legislations, the right to life and health remains paramount. The order reaffirmed that the State’s obligation to preserve life does not cease upon incarceration and that constitutional compassion cannot be confined by statutory severity.

Together, these decisions illustrate that medical bail is not merely a procedural concession but an assertion of constitutional morality.
Conclusion

Medical bail is not merely a procedural relief, but a mechanism that tests how effectively the criminal justice system balances human rights with the need for accountability. Courts across the country have repeatedly underscored that the State’s obligation to preserve life does not cease upon incarceration. While rooted in the constitutional recognition of the right to health, its true measure lies in its implementation. In practice, medical bail serves as a crucial safeguard for those genuinely in need of treatment, but its efficacy depends on consistent judicial oversight and medical verification. Instances of both genuine relief and strategic misuse coexist, revealing that the challenge is less about having the provision and more about enforcing it with integrity.  

While the judiciary must vigilantly guard against misuse, the denial of adequate medical treatment in custody is a direct affront to Article 21. By harmonizing statutory provisions, humanitarian principles, and constitutional guarantees, the framework for medical bail ensures that the right to health and the administration of justice coexist without compromising either. This nuanced balance between compassion and control represents the essence of judicial responsibility in a constitutional democracy.