Bar Council of India Notice

Disclaimer & Confirmation

As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, an advocate is not permitted to solicit work or advertise. By clicking “I Agree” below, you acknowledge and confirm that:

you are seeking information about Advocate Manish Jha of your own accord and for your own information and use; there has been no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any kind whatsoever from Advocate Manish Jha or the chamber to solicit any work through this website; the information made available here is provided only on your specific request; and no information on this website is to be construed as legal advice, nor does its use create any advocate-client relationship.

⚖  E-397, 4th Floor, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi – 110027 Mon–Sat  ·  +91 98738 50301  ·  legal@advocatemanishjha.com
Advocate Manish Jha Criminal · Civil · Family Law — New Delhi ☎  Consult the Chamber
Home › Interim Bail: Medical Grounds
Delhi High Court · 6 November 2026

Twelve Weeks to Heal: Interim Bail on Medical Grounds in a Murder Case

In Mubeen v. State, the Delhi High Court granted a seriously ill undertrial twelve weeks of interim bail to undergo advised thoracic surgery, reaffirming that the power to release on health grounds is inherent in the power to grant bail and anchored in Article 21.

☎  Speak to the Chamber Chamber & Location

An undertrial in a kidnapping-murder case has been in custody since January 2023. He suffers from pulmonary tuberculosis, and the thoracic surgery department of a government chest hospital has advised an operation that an earlier, shorter spell of interim bail did not allow him to undergo. On 6 November 2026, in Mubeen v. State (NCT of Delhi) (BAIL APPLN. 3022/2026), Justice Sachin Datta of the Delhi High Court granted interim bail for twelve weeks — a textbook application of the medical-grounds jurisprudence that treats health-based release as a facet of Article 21.

The case and the illness

The petitioner is an accused in FIR No. 11/2023, PS Mangol Puri, registered under Sections 365, 302, 394, 397, 201, 120B and 34 of the IPC — kidnapping, murder and robbery with related offences. He has been in judicial custody since 11 January 2023. The medical history is what brought the matter back to the High Court: the petitioner suffers from pulmonary tuberculosis, and doctors have advised surgery.

A six-week interim bail granted on 29 May 2026 lapsed without the operation taking place. When the fresh application was heard, the State handed over an updated report from the thoracic surgery department of the LRS Institute — a report that confirmed the seriousness of the condition and the continuing advice of surgery. The order records no substantive opposition from the prosecution once that report was on record.

What the court held

The medical record spoke for itself. “It is evident that the petitioner’s medical condition is serious, as is borne out from the aforesaid report,” the court noted — the decisive finding, resting on the government hospital’s own assessment rather than private medical opinion.
The power is inherent and constitutional. Relying on the line of authority in Mukesh Kishanpuria v. State of West Bengal and the more recent exposition in Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, the court reiterated that the power to grant interim bail “is inherent in the power to grant bail, particularly in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Twelve weeks, strictly conditioned. The petitioner was “released on interim bail for a period of 12 weeks from the date of his release” on a personal bond of Rs 25,000 with one surety, subject to conditions: he must not leave the NCT of Delhi, must not contact prosecution witnesses, must report to the treating institute within one week, must undergo the advised surgery and furnish his hospital records to the investigating officer, and must surrender on expiry.

The anatomy of a medical bail order

Purpose-built duration. The period is calibrated to the treatment — long enough for surgery and recovery, not an open-ended release. Where an earlier spell proved too short for the procedure, that history itself supports a longer, more realistic window.
Treatment-enforcing conditions. Directions to report to the hospital, undergo the procedure and file records with the IO ensure the liberty granted is spent on its stated purpose. A release used for anything else invites cancellation and colours every future application.
The State’s report matters. Where the jail’s own referral hospital confirms the illness, the usual prosecution objection — that ailments are exaggerated to engineer release — falls away. Candour from the State, as here, shortens the hearing considerably.
Custody since 2023 was not the ground. The order rests on health, not delay. Long custody and trial delay are separate grounds with their own jurisprudence; conflating them weakens both.

The practice points

Build the application on government-hospital records: referral notes, treatment charts and the specific advice of surgery or specialised care that custody cannot deliver.

Ask for a period matched to the treatment plan, and explain what happened during any earlier interim release — unexplained lapses are the commonest reason fresh applications fail.

Offer treatment-verification conditions proactively: reporting to the hospital, filing records with the IO, and a clear surrender date.

For the prosecution, seek verification from the jail’s referral hospital rather than opposing on assertion; the medical record usually decides the matter either way.

Interim bail on medical grounds is neither an acquittal nor a comment on the merits. It is the system’s acknowledgment that imprisonment before conviction cannot lawfully extend to the denial of serious medical care. The twelve-week clock in this case began on release — and ends, as every such order does, at the jail gate.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is interim bail on medical grounds?

It is a time-bound release ordered so that an accused can receive treatment that custody cannot adequately provide — here, advised surgery. Unlike regular bail, it does not assess the merits of the case in the usual way; it rests on the medical record, and it ends on a fixed date when the accused must surrender.

Does the seriousness of the charge rule it out?

No. The charges here included murder and robbery, yet interim bail was granted. Courts treat the right to adequate medical care as flowing from Article 21, which belongs to undertrials regardless of the gravity of the allegation. The gravity instead shapes the conditions — bond, territorial limits, no contact with witnesses and a fixed surrender date.

What medical proof do courts expect?

Contemporaneous records from a government hospital carry the most weight. In this case the State itself placed before the court an updated report of the thoracic surgery department confirming that the condition was serious and surgery was advised. Independent or court-directed medical verification is common where the prosecution disputes the illness.

What happens when the interim period ends?

The accused must surrender on expiry, and non-surrender invites cancellation and arrest. Here the court also directed the accused to report to the treating institute within a week, undergo the advised surgery and furnish his hospital records to the investigating officer — conditions designed to ensure the release is actually used for treatment.

Sources

Note: This article is general information about the law and is not legal advice. It does not create an advocate-client relationship. The position stated is as at 14 November 2026 and may have changed since. Readers should verify any provision or decision referred to against the official text and seek advice on their own circumstances.