Denying bail to undertrial with critical health condition amounts to death sentence: Gujarat High Court

Denying bail to an undertrial whose health condition is critical would amount to a death sentence, the Gujarat High Court said on Monday while granting bail to a 69-year-old murder accused suffering from a rare disease [Jafar Sadrudin Dargahwala v. State of Gujarat]..Justice Divyesh Joshi noted that the petitioner was in custody since September 15, 2022 and was suffering from Rosai-Dorfman disease (RDD)."The under-trial has a right to health under the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, in my opinion, this court as a Constitutional Court should exercise its prerogative writ to direct the release of the under-trial forthwith, in view of his health condition and advanced age," the Court said in its order.The judge further noted that during the short span of incarceration, the petitioner was to be taken to several hospitals within Gujarat and also in Mumbai, Maharashtra for treatment."...continued incarceration of the under-trial is incompatible with his health condition, thereby violating his right to health under Article 21 of the Constitution of India...Even denying bail to the applicant-accused when fully made aware about his critical health condition and the repercussions thereof if not provided adequate treatment, would be equivalent to imposition of death sentence to the applicant-accused," Justice Joshi underscored..The Court took into consideration the fact that nearby hospitals did not have adequate facilities to treat the petitioner."Therefore, the undertrial could certainly not be fit for being kept in prison, given the lack of facility to monitor the health of the under-trial or to give any kind of treatment in case of emergency. The under-trial could not be detained in prison as it would risk his life and there was every possibility of the health of the under-trial deteriorating."The Court dismissed the argument that the petition was filed only to avoid trial. It noted that the petitioner himself desired to face trial to clear his name."Taking any other view in the matter would amount to diluting rights available to prisoners to claim relief on health grounds under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly when material available on record indicates that continued incarceration of such persons would amount to endangering their life," the Court underlined..Advocates Ashish Dagli and VA Mansuri appeared for the petitioner.Additional Public Prosecutor LB Dabhi along with Advocate Darshit Brahmbhatt represented the State..[Read judgment]