The Delhi High Court ruled that prisoners and undertrial accused cannot be denied proper medical treatment and allowed a murder accused to undergo urgent CT and MRI brain scans. The Court stressed that the right to health is part of the fundamental right to life, regardless of judicial custody.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has recently allowed a murder accused to undergo urgent brain scans after taking note of serious neurological issues faced by him. The order was passed by Justice Girish Kathpalia, where the Court strongly reaffirmed that the right to proper medical treatment is a fundamental right, even for persons lodged in jail.
While hearing the matter, the High Court made it very clear that being in judicial custody does not take away a person’s basic human rights. Emphasising the constitutional protection available to prisoners and undertrial accused, the Court observed,
“The accused/applicant, as a human being cannot be deprived of proper medical treatment, more so when he is under detention in judicial custody. Right to health is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty. The applicant as on date is only an accused, not a convict… Even the most dreaded criminal and convict has fundamental right to life and liberty, and the same cannot be abrogated without following due process of law,”.
ALSO READ: Delhi HC Orders Tihar Jail Authorities to Ensure Urgent Medical Care for Yasin Malik
The case relates to serious allegations against the accused, who is alleged to have committed murder and later set the victim’s body on fire to destroy evidence and conceal the identity of the deceased.
The accused has been booked under Sections 103(1) (offence of murder) and 238(b) (tampering with evidence) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), along with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for illegal possession and use of firearms.
Initially, the accused approached the High Court seeking interim bail on medical grounds, stating that he was suffering from neurological problems and required immediate medical tests.
As per the plea, a CT scan was scheduled for January 22 and an MRI scan was fixed for May 11 at Safdarjung Hospital.
During the course of the hearing, however, the State informed the Court that a sessions court order dated October 29, 2025 had already refused an extension of interim medical bail to the accused, and this fact was not disclosed in the application filed before the High Court.
Following this submission by the prosecution, the counsel for the accused sought permission to withdraw the interim bail plea. Accepting the request, the High Court allowed the withdrawal of the application.
At the same time, the Court categorically clarified that withdrawal of the bail plea would not prejudice or affect the accused’s right to receive proper medical treatment while remaining in judicial custody.
The State had placed a status report before the sessions court acknowledging that the accused was indeed suffering from neurological issues which were serious enough to require further detailed medical examination.
Taking note of this medical report and the overall circumstances, the High Court issued specific directions to ensure timely treatment.
Accordingly, the Court directed the Medical Superintendent of All India Institute of Medical Sciences to conduct CT and MRI brain scans of the accused on a priority basis, and to ensure that the scans are carried out within one week.
The Court further directed the investigating officer to place a copy of the order before the concerned hospital authorities, and also send another copy to the jail superintendent so that the directions are strictly complied with.
While passing the order, the High Court also highlighted the need for courts to carefully balance competing interests when dealing with medical pleas of persons in custody.
The Court noted,
“The court in such cases has to carry out balancing of interests to ensure that the detained accused person is not deprived of appropriate medical treatment and at the same time, the State and the complainant de facto also do not suffer,”.
Advocate Abhishek Rana and advocate Vikas appeared on behalf of the petitioner-accused, while Additional Public Prosecutor Sanjeev Sabharwal represented the State before the High Court.
Case Title:
Jagarnath Shah @ Lala v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Read More Reports On Medical Care
