CASE NAME: Jagarnath Shah @ Lala Vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
CASE NUMBER: Bail Application 155/2026
COURT: The High Court of New Delhi
DATE: 15.01.2026
QUORUM: Justice Girish Kathpalia
FACTS
The accused/applicant has filed an application for seeking interim bail on medical grounds in respect of FIR No. 297/2025, registered at Police Station Alipur, for offenses punishable under Section 103(1)/238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. As alleged by the prosecution, the accused allegedly killed the deceased and later burned the body in order to conceal identity. The prosecution argued that the case against the accused is proved by CCTV footage, recovery of the weapon of offence, recovery of the vehicle used, and last seen evidence.
The accused applied for interim bail on the ground that he was undergoing only conservative treatment while in judicial custody. It was also submitted that his CT Brain scan is scheduled on January 22, 2026, and MRI Brain scan on May 11, 2026, at Safdarjung Hospital, and that his medical condition is deteriorating due to his neurological issues, as apparent from his medical status report already filed before the Sessions Court.
The State opposed the application, highlighting that the accused had concealed the order of the Sessions Court dated October 29, 2025, dismissing his application for an extension of the interim bail on medical grounds. The Sessions Court had noted that when the accused was granted earlier interim bail, he had failed to commence his treatment on time and instead sought an extension.
The complainant’s counsel also referred to an order dated December 19, 2025, which mentioned that during the previous period of interim bail, the family members of the accused allegedly attempted to encroach upon the property of the complainant, resulting in a complaint being lodged by the wife of the deceased. In fact, during the court proceedings, the defence lawyer, after taking instructions from the accused, requested to withdraw the application for interim bail, which was granted by the court.
ISSUES
Whether, despite the withdrawal of the interim bail application and the concealment of material facts, the Court could issue directions to ensure proper medical examination and treatment of the undertrial accused in judicial custody, in furtherance of the right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 103(1)/238(b), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Sections 25 and 27, Arms Act
- Article 21, Constitution of India – Right to life and personal liberty, including the right to health
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED/APPLICANT)
The accused argued that he was suffering from some neurological problems and that the medical facilities provided in the jail were limited. It was also argued that there was an excessive delay in performing some crucial tests like CT Brain and MRI Brain, which were scheduled to be done after several months.
However, during the pendency of the hearing, the accused sought the withdrawal of the application for interim bail, and no adjudication on bail was pressed.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT (STATE AND COMPLAINANT)
The State, through the learned APP, opposed the application by submitting that the accused had suppressed the Sessions Court’s order dated 29.10.2025, dismissing his application for the extension of the interim bail. It was also submitted that the accused had previously misused the opportunity of interim bail by failing to initiate medical treatment.
The complainant’s counsel argued that during the initial period of the interim bail, the family members of the accused attempted to interfere with the complainant’s property, forcing the wife of the deceased to file a complaint.
ANALYSIS
The Court noted that “concealment of material facts is normally sufficient ground for summary dismissal of a petition.” But the Court did not choose to adjudicate the bail application on merits, as the accused had withdrawn the bail application voluntarily.
Despite this, the Court assessed the issue from a constitutional and humanitarian perspective. The Court noted that the accused was an undertrial, and his alleged collusion in the crime was yet to be determined by the trial court. The Court reiterated that the right to health is an integral part of the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
The Court further held that even convicts and hardened criminals have basic rights, which cannot be waived without observing the due process of law. When an accused is in judicial custody, the State also has a corresponding obligation to provide adequate medical facilities.
However, the Court also emphasized the need to strike a balance between different interests, so that humanitarian concerns cannot prejudice the interests of the State or the complainant.
JUDGMENT
The application for interim bail and the accompanying application were ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn.
Despite the withdrawal, the Court ordered the Medical Superintendent of AIIMS Hospital to perform the CT Brain and MRI Brain of the accused on a priority basis within one week. The Investigating Officer was directed to produce a copy of the order before the Medical Superintendent, and the accused was to be taken into custody for the purpose of conducting the tests and for further treatment in jail or a hospital attached to the jail.
A copy of the order was ordered to be transmitted immediately to the concerned Jail Superintendent.
CONCLUSION
The Court did not decide on the accused’s right to interim bail. However, it reiterated the constitutional obligation to secure the right to health of the undertrial in judicial custody. The Court’s custodial health directives issued without bail ensured compliance with Article 21 and the interests of the State and the complainant were also protected.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best Arms Act lawyer, Best BNS Lawyer, Best BNS law firm.”
WRITTEN BY: USIKA K
