Delhi High Court: In the applications seeking directions for the appellant’s immediate medical examination, production of his medical records, and grant of interim suspension of sentence/interim bail during the pendency of the criminal appeal, the Division Bench of Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan, JJ., granted interim bail while directing preservation of CCTV footage and further examination of the allegations of custodial assault.
Read Earlier Order: Fractured Hand, No Treatment, and a Demand for Protection Money: Delhi HC Orders CCTV Preserved and Independent Medical Examination in Tihar Assault Allegations
Background
The present application was filed in a pending criminal appeal seeking directions for the appellant’s immediate medical examination and for calling his medical records. The appellant had challenged his conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-01 (POCSO), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi, whereby he was convicted under Sections 363, 342, 376(2)(i) and 323, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and sentenced to imprisonment for life.
While lodged in Central Jail, Tihar, the appellant, through his counsel and family members, alleged that during a jail visit they were informed that on 26 June 2026, the Head Warden, had physically assaulted the appellant and 2 other inmates between 7.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. The appellant claimed to have sustained serious injuries to his hand, suspected a fracture, and alleged that despite the severity of the injuries, he was neither medically examined nor provided any treatment. It was further alleged that the Head Warden had demanded illegal protection money from the appellant. Relying on these allegations, the appellant sought immediate medical examination and production of his medical records before the Court.
Finding the allegations, if true, to be “extremely disconcerting”, the Court by order dated 17 July 2026 in Ashish v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5184, issued several directions, including:
-
preservation and production of CCTV footage covering the relevant period on 26 June 2026,
-
personal appearance of Head Warden Sagar along with a comprehensive status report,
-
submission of a detailed report by the Jail Medical Officer regarding examination and treatment provided to the appellant,
-
disclosure of whether diagnostic tests such as X-ray had been conducted,
-
immediate independent medical examination of the appellant and the 2 other inmates by the Medical Superintendent of Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, and
-
filing of a response by the Jail Superintendent in a sealed cover.
These directions were intended to enable the Court to independently assess the allegations regarding custodial assault.
The Court noted that it received in a sealed cover, the report of the Jail Superintendent; the Jail Medical Officer’s report; a pen drive containing CCTV footage; medical reports from Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital and the status report submitted by Head Warden Sagar.
Issue for Determination
Whether, in light of the material placed before the Court regarding the appellant’s alleged custodial assault and medical condition, interim bail should be granted pending further examination of the matter?
Analysis and Decision
At the outset, the Court noted that a prima facie examination of the medical reports indicated that the appellant had suffered a fracture of the left forearm and that an elbow cast had been applied.
Without recording any final conclusion regarding the allegations against the jail officials, the Court observed that there had been “some confirmation of the alleged incident where the appellant appears to have been injured”. It opined that the appellant was entitled to interim relief by way of interim bail while the Court continued its examination of the reports and CCTV footage.
The Court granted interim bail for a period of 30 days from the date of release, subject to the following conditions:
-
furnishing a personal bond of ₹10,000 with 1 surety of the like amount;
-
informing the investigating officer of the residential address after release and any subsequent change;
-
providing and updating his mobile number;
-
not contacting the family members of the deceased directly or indirectly;
-
not indulging in any criminal activity, failing which the interim bail would automatically stand cancelled;
-
not leaving the country without prior permission of the Court; and
-
surrender before the Jail Superintendent concerned immediately upon expiry of the 30-day period.
The Court additionally directed that:
-
the 2 other inmates allegedly injured in the same incident should receive proper medical treatment under the supervision of doctors at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital,
-
the sealed cover containing the reports and CCTV footage should remain on record,
-
the Jail Superintendent should preserve and produce within 1 week the CCTV footage relating to another alleged incident dated 27 June 2026 involving the appellant, and
-
the matter be listed on 23 September 2026 for further directions.
The Court also recorded the submission of the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) that compensation had already been paid to the victim, and consequently dispensed with the DSLSA’s further appearance.
[Ashish v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5462, decided on 29-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. Digant Mishra, Ms. Kashmira Lambat, Mr. Abhinav Deshwal, Ms. Zainab Siddiqui, Mr. Sahir Gahlot, Mr Dipankar Singh and Ms. Anshul Rajora, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for State with Ms. Divya Yadav and Mr. Lalit Luthra, Advs.
Mr. B. Badrinath (DSLSA) and Mr. Dhruv Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Mr. Faraz Maqbool, Ms. Sahitya Veena and Ms. Ananya Luthra, Advocates for the Victim.