Prison Walls Cannot Nullify the Right to Medical Treatment

The deprivation of personal liberty through incarceration does not entail the forfeiture of all fundamental rights. Among the most non-derogable of these is the right to health and medical treatment. Indian constitutional jurisprudence has consistently affirmed that imprisonment curtails freedom of movement but does not extinguish the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The recent decision of the Delhi High Court in Jagarnath Shah @ Lala v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2026) once again reinforces this settled yet frequently violated principle: prison walls cannot become barriers to medical care.

The judgment assumes significance not merely because it concerns an accused charged with grave offences, but because it reiterates a constitutional truth often forgotten in penal discourse, that even the most reviled accused remains a human being entitled to dignity, healthcare, and humane treatment.

Facts of the Case

The applicant, Jagarnath Shah @ Lala, was in judicial custody in connection with FIR No. 297/2025, registered at Police Station Alipur, for offences under:

• Section 103(1) and Section 238(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and
• Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

According to the prosecution, the allegations against the applicant were grave. It was alleged that the accused not only killed the deceased but also burned the body in an attempt to conceal identity. The prosecution relied on multiple strands of evidence, including:

• CCTV footage,
• Recovery of the weapon of offence,
• Recovery of the vehicle allegedly used to take the deceased away, and
• Evidence of last seen together.

The seriousness of the allegations placed the case in the category of heinous offences involving deliberate concealment after commission of the crime.

Medical Grounds for Interim Bail

The accused sought interim bail on medical grounds, contending that he was suffering from neurological issues and was receiving only conservative treatment in jail.

It was specifically pointed out that:

• A CT Brain scan was scheduled for 22 January 2026, and
• An MRI Brain scan was scheduled for 11 May 2026 at Safdarjung Hospital.

The applicant argued that the long delay in conducting essential neurological investigations posed a serious risk to his health and that his condition was deteriorating.

Reliance was placed on the medical status report earlier filed by the State before the Sessions Court, which reflected certain neurological concerns.

State’s Objection: Concealment and Past Conduct

The State, represented by the learned APP and assisted by the Investigating Officer, strongly opposed the application. A crucial objection raised was the concealment of material facts.

It was pointed out that the accused had not disclosed an order dated 29 October 2025 passed by the Sessions Court, by which his earlier application for extension of interim bail on medical grounds was dismissed.

The Sessions Court had recorded that:

• The accused was earlier granted interim bail on medical grounds, but
• He did not immediately commence treatment,
• No steps were taken for treatment until 28 October 2025, and
• Only thereafter did he seek extension of medical bail.

This conduct, according to the prosecution, showed misuse of liberty and lack of bona fides.

Objections by the Complainant

Counsel for the complainant de facto further relied on an order dated 19 December 2025 of the Sessions Court, highlighting that during the earlier period of interim bail:

• Family members of the accused allegedly attempted to encroach upon property belonging to the complainant, and
• The wife of the deceased lodged a complaint vide DD No. 36-A dated 28 October 2025.

These facts were relied upon to argue that granting any form of bail would prejudice the complainant and enable interference with property and witnesses.

Withdrawal of the Interim Bail Application

Faced with strong opposition and adverse judicial observations from prior proceedings, learned counsel for the accused, on instructions, sought permission to withdraw the interim bail application.

The Delhi High Court allowed the request, and the interim bail application, along with the connected application, was dismissed as withdrawn.

At this stage, the matter could have ended purely as a procedural dismissal. However, the Court consciously chose to address a deeper constitutional concern.

Concealment of Facts: Judicial Observation

Justice Girish Kathpalia made an important observation on the concealment of material facts. The Court noted that:

In the normal state of affairs, concealment of a fact should be a ground to summarily throw out the petition or application.

This statement reinforces settled procedural law that litigants approaching constitutional courts must do so with clean hands. Suppression or concealment ordinarily disentitles a party to discretionary relief.

However, the Court immediately carved out a constitutional exception rooted in human rights and custodial justice.

Right to Health of Prisoners and Undertrial Accused

Despite concealment and withdrawal of the bail application, the Court emphasised that the accused remained:

• A human being, and
• An undertrial, not yet convicted.

The Court unequivocally held that:

• Right to health is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty.
• An accused person in judicial custody cannot be deprived of proper medical treatment.
• Even the most dreaded criminal or convict continues to enjoy Article 21 protections, subject only to procedure established by law.

The Court reiterated a vital constitutional principle: incarceration curtails liberty but does not extinguish dignity.

Directions Issued by the Court

Instead of granting bail, the Court adopted a measured and constitutionally sound alternative.

The Delhi High Court directed:

1) Medical Superintendent, AIIMS Hospital to conduct:

• CT Brain scan, and
• MRI Brain scan

of the accused on a priority basis, within one week from the date of the order.

2) The Investigating Officer was directed to:

• Present a copy of the order before the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS Hospital by the next day.

3) On the date fixed by the Medical Superintendent:

• The accused shall be taken into custody for the required medical investigations.

4) After completion of the scans:

• The accused shall receive the requisite medical treatment either in jail or in a hospital attached to the jail.

5) A copy of the order was directed to be immediately transmitted to the Jail Superintendent concerned.

These directions ensured medical access without enlarging the accused on bail.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s observation that prison walls cannot deprive a human being of proper medical treatment is not merely a compassionate remark; it is a constitutional command. The right to health flows inexorably from the right to life, and incarceration does not sever this lifeline.

Jagarnath Shah @ Lala v. State (NCT of Delhi) stands as a reminder that the legitimacy of the criminal justice system depends not only on its ability to punish crime, but also on its commitment to constitutional morality. A system that neglects the health of those in its custody risks transforming lawful detention into unlawful cruelty.

Ultimately, the measure of a civilised society lies not in how it treats the free, but in how it treats those behind bars. The Constitution demands nothing less than humanity, dignity, and care, even within prison walls.

Important Link