The Bombay High Court has dismissed an interim application filed by an undertrial accused in a ₹139-crore economic offence case, seeking medical bail and permission to undergo treatment at a private multi-speciality hospital of his choice. Justice R.N.Laddha has noted the prisoner’s fundamental right to seek medical treatment; however, this does not extend to the “right to insist on treatment at a private hospital of his own choice when the necessary care is readily available at a government hospital.”
Accused, currently lodged in Yerwada Jail, had argued that he suffers from chronic kidney disease and is entitled to treatment at a private facility at his own cost. He relied on a magistrate’s earlier order permitting private treatment, and a later direction from the High Court asking the magistrate to decide his application expeditiously.
However, the State opposed the plea, pointing to a 2006 Government of Maharashtra circular requiring undertrials to be treated in government hospitals unless exceptional circumstances exist. Jail authorities suggested referral to JJ Hospital, Mumbai, where the required specialist care was available. The State also highlighted that the accused refused to undergo treatment at JJ Hospital despite being escorted there, undermining claims of medical urgency.
The complainant (respondent no. 2) alleged repeated misuse of “medical grounds” by the applicant as a tactic to evade judicial proceedings, noting inconsistencies between his medical reports.
The Court, while referring to Chintan Jain vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation, GAHC010250472022, has held that “availability of of treatment at government-run hospital, like the JJ Hospital, Mumbai, where all medical facilities are available, does not, in any manner, infringe upon the applicant’s fundamental rights.”
The Court noted procedural lapses in the original magistrate’s order and emphasised that the applicant’s refusal to avail treatment at JJ Hospital “raises serious questions about his intentions and undermines any claim of urgency or necessity for private medical intervention.”
Finding no compelling grounds for private treatment or medical bail, the Court rejected the application, directing the State to ensure necessary medical aid in accordance with law.
Appearaneces
Mr Aabad Ponda, Sr Advocate a/w Mr Aditya Ajgaonkar, Mr Pulkit Tyagi, Ms Rupal Shrimal i/by Mohd Naved Mulla for the applicant.
Mr SS Pednekar, APP for the respondent / State.
Mr Rushikesh Kale for respondent No.2.
