Justice Girish Kathpalia, Delhi High Court
Ailment Can Be Taken Care Of Even In Jail: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To NDPS Accused Suffering From Cancer
|The Delhi High Court dismissed the Application for bail for offences under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
The Delhi High Court denied bail to an NDPS accused suffering from cancer, while remarking that the ailment can be taken care of even during her stay in jail.
The Court dismissed the Application for bail for offences under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) after considering the Prosecution’s submission that the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be ignored by the Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia remarked, “The ailment, unfortunately suffered by the accused/applicant is certainly a significant factor but I find substance in the submission of learned Prosecutor that it is not an ailment of temporary kind. The ailment can certainly be taken care of even during her stay in jail. This balance has to be done by the Court keeping in mind the above mentioned antecedents of the accused/applicant, involved in as many as twenty-nine cases, out of which four cases are under the NDPS Act and the remaining are under Delhi Excise Act. I find substance in submission that the rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act cannot be ignored by the Court.”
Senior Advocate Amit Chadha appeared for the Petitioner, while APP Aman Usman represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
An FIR was registered against the Petitioner, where the Prosecution alleged recovery of 480 grams of heroin, which is a commercial quantity.
The Petitioner submitted that she is suffering from Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, a cancer for which the jail dispensary has no treatment, and she is being treated at Max Healthcare Hospital. It was also pointed out that out of four cases under the NDPS Act in which the Petitioner is involved, she was granted bail in three.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted, “The present application is practically for extension of interim bail, though the relief is worded as grant of interim bail for further period of three months.”
The Bench acknowledged that "the accused/applicant, being in judicial custody, it is the duty of the State to ensure her well-being and right to good health." While recognising the ailment as a "significant factor," the Court found "substance in the submission of learned Prosecutor that it is not an ailment of temporary kind" and "the ailment can certainly be taken care of even during her stay in jail."
Consequently, the Court ordered, “Under these circumstances, I am unable to find it a fit case to grant further interim bail to the accused/applicant. The application is dismissed and it is directed that the accused/applicant shall surrender positively on 15.06.2025 as already directed. It is also specifically directed that the jail authorities shall provide the best possible treatment to the accused/applicant and if so desired by her, she would be taken in custody to the hospital(s) of her choice and shall be provided with all the prescribed medicines at the cost of the exchequer, since she would be in custody.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Application.
Cause Title: Jyoti v. State NCT of Delhi (BAIL APPLN. 1177/2025)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Amit Chadha; Advocates Sanjog Singh and Furkan
Respondent: APP Aman Usman