Himachal Pradesh High Court: Petitioner had filed the present petition seeking regular bail under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), on medical grounds, as he was suffering from Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Ranjan Sharma, J.*, opined that since the Jail Authorities had failed to provide the required medical treatment and failed to extend required advisories given by medical experts of Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla, therefore, petitioner was needed to be enlarged on bail on extreme adversarial medical grounds. The Court further noted that the medical records indicated that petitioner was HIV positive and had lost about 9-10 kgs of weight during last two weeks. Further, even the officials of Kaithu Jail, Shimla had expressed their practical difficulty in not providing adequate medical healthcare and personal hygiene, therefore, the prayer of petitioner for enlargement of bail was needed to be accepted. Thus, the Court stated that petitioner should be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer (‘SHO’), Police Station, Shimla/ Investigating Officer (‘IO’).
Background
Petitioner was a co-accused along with five others in FIR dated 19-02-2024, registered under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467 and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and was in custody since 20-02-2024. Petitioner stated that he had been falsely implicated and the facts in the FIR were fabricated, concocted and without any basis. It was averred that petitioner had good antecedents and he had no connection or concern with the alleged offence. After the registration of FIR on 19-02-2024, petitioner had filed a bail application before the Trial Court, but the same was rejected on 27-02-2024. Thereafter, petitioner filed another bail application on 29-02-2024, but the same was also dismissed.
Thus, the petitioner filed the present petition. Petitioner stated that he had developed the chronic health ailment owing to his being HIV positive and he was also susceptible to many other diseases which could be fatal for his survival.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that fundamental right to life, which included the right to health and healthcare, right to live with dignity could not be shrunk or curtailed even in case of a person who was in custody. The State authorities were under an obligation to safeguard the right to life, be it related to the right to health of a commoner or prisoner. The right to life of a prisoner was more than a mere animal existence or vegetable subsistence. Even, prisoners have basic human rights, human dignity and human sympathy and any kind of de-humanizing factor or any attempt to defeat the real, meaningful and healthy living could not be permitted to sustain in case of prisoners. Failure on the part of a government hospital to provide the timely medical treatment to a person results in violation of his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, as had been done in the instant case.
The Court referred to Prisons Act, 1894, Himachal Pradesh Prison Manual, 2021, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Act, 2017 and opined that in the background of the mandate of law and statutory provisions, the inaction of Department of Prisons and Correctional Home Services to provide the needed health care medical facilities, was certainly an attempt to shrink the fundamental rights, human rights and human dignity of petitioner.
The Court further opined that the Jail Authorities had also failed to implement Himachal Pradeesh Prison Manual, 2021, as no regular Medical Officer was posted in Kaithu Jail, Shimla. A visiting doctor was deployed to visit the jail, twice a week, which schedule was also by and large at the mercy of higher authorities. Further, inmate capacity in Kaithu Jail was 183, whereas 254 prisoners’ inmates existed as on the present day. Medical assistance of prisoner was being addressed by pharmacist, which could have any adversarial effect in case of any untoward incident.
The Court opined that since the Jail Authorities had failed to provide the required medical treatment and failed to extend required advisories given by medical experts of Indira Gandhi Medical College and Hospital, Shimla, therefore, petitioner was needed to be enlarged on bail on extreme adversarial medical grounds. The Court further noted that the medical records indicated that petitioner was HIV positive and had lost about 9-10 kgs of weight during last two weeks. Further, even the officials of Kaithu Jail, Shimla had expressed their practical difficulty in not providing adequate medical healthcare and personal hygiene, therefore, the prayer of petitioner for enlargement of bail was needed to be accepted.
Thus, the Court stated that petitioner should be enlarged on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 30,000 with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of SHO, Police Station, Shimla/ IO. Petitioner should report at Police Station [East] Shimla, as and when called by Investigating Agencies and should disclose his functional e-mail IDs/WhatsApp number to SHO/IO concerned. Further, in case petitioner needed to visit any medical institution inside Shimla, the petitioner himself or through his surety furnish the details of his whereabouts to SHO/IO. However, if petitioner needed to visit medical institution outside Shimla, then petitioner should daily furnish the details regarding date, time, place of stay and institution where he intended or sought treatment. Petitioner should also furnish copy of OPD or IPD slips where he sought treatment and should keep his mobile/WhatsApp number, with live GPS location.
The Court stated that petitioner should not leave the country without prior information of the Court and should not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case or the witnesses. Further, petitioner should neither involve himself in any offence nor should abet commission of any offence. The Court stated that violation of any condition should entail cancellation of bail automatically and if circumstances necessitated, respondent was at liberty to move this Court for modification or cancellation of bail.
Further, to ensure implementation of prison reforms and to safeguard and preserve the fundamental right of life in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court requested the Registry to place the matter to the Chief Justice of the present Court for considering it to be taken up as Public Interest litigation, so that the mandate of law and Prisons Act, 1894, Himachal Pradesh Prison Manual, 2021 saw the light of day, instead of allowing it merely to remain a mere paper document.
[X v. State of H.P., 2024 SCC OnLine HP 1906, decided on 03-05-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Ranjan Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Servedaman Rathore, Vipin Bhatia and Rohit Steta, Advocates;
For the Respondent: Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General; Prakash Chand, Deputy Superintendent [Jails], District Jail, Kaithu, Shimla and Sanjeev Kumar, Pharmacist, District Jail, Kaithu, Shimla.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Constitution of India HERE
