Doctor Has No Authority to Recommend Bail to Jail Authorities — Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Interim Bail In NDPS Despite Mother's Cardiac Condition

“Medical Compassion Cannot Override Statutory Mandate in NDPS Offences” — Punjab and Haryana High Court refused interim bail to an accused in a commercial quantity narcotics case under the NDPS Act, rejecting emotional and medical grounds advanced for temporary release. Justice Sanjay Vashisth made sharp observations on the attempt to seek bail citing the health of the petitioner’s mother, stating:
“No ground is made out to grant interim regular bail to the petitioner on account of medical health condition of the mother.”

The Court went further to rebuke the conduct of the treating doctor who issued the medical certificate supporting the bail plea, remarking:
“It is quite surprising that even the treating doctor himself has requested the jail authorities to allow the petitioner to be his mother's side... such a recommendation is inappropriate on the part of any doctor.”

The petitioner, Gurnam Singh, had been arrested in FIR No. 83 dated 26.04.2019, under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, for alleged possession of 255 grams of Alprazolam, which falls under commercial quantity.

Initially granted interim bail in July 2019 due to the pending Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, he was taken back into custody when the FSL confirmed the substance to be Alprazolam. The bail was cancelled in March 2021. After subsequent anticipatory bail petitions failed, the petitioner surrendered on 14 May 2025, and charges have since been framed.

The present plea for interim regular bail for six weeks was moved on the ground that the petitioner’s widowed mother, aged 65, suffered a myocardial infarction and required surgery. A medical certificate dated 09.07.2025 issued by Dr. Vikrant Bhatia was relied upon, in which the doctor unusually wrote:
“For the sake of human life, I humbly request the respected higher jail authorities to allow her son to be her side during the tenure of her treatment.”

Justice Vashisth rejected this certificate as a valid basis for bail and expressed displeasure over the doctor’s attempt to influence jail or judicial authorities, remarking:
“Such a recommendation is inappropriate on the part of any doctor, while issuing any medical certificate regarding health of someone, who is simply a patient before him/her.”

The Court found this to be a misuse of medical opinion, and refused to allow it to substitute the legal requirements under the NDPS Act, particularly in a case involving commercial quantity.

The State’s status report, placed on record on 18.08.2025, stated that the petitioner’s mother had only received 12 hours of treatment, had not yet undergone surgery, and was currently at home. More importantly, the report pointed out that the petitioner’s wife and three adult brothers were all residing in the same household, and were fully capable of taking care of the ailing mother.

The High Court relied on this report to conclude that the petitioner’s presence was not indispensable, and that the plea lacked the urgency or uniqueness required to override Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Dismissing the plea, Justice Sanjay Vashisth held:
“No ground is made out to grant interim regular bail… The petitioner’s wife and brothers are available to take care of the mother. The petitioner is not entitled to bail on these grounds.”

The Court reinforced that the NDPS Act’s mandate is not to be diluted on sentimental appeals or questionable medical endorsements, especially when the case involves commercial quantity.

This judgment serves as a stern reminder that interim bail in commercial quantity NDPS cases cannot be granted merely on sympathetic grounds. The Court’s remarks also send a clear message to medical professionals: their role is clinical, not judicial. An endorsement requesting bail is not only jurisdictionally improper, but also undermines the integrity of both professions.

The High Court’s refusal to entertain such a plea strengthens the jurisprudence around strict compliance with Section 37 of the NDPS Act, while denouncing attempts to circumvent statutory barriers through emotional leverage.

Date of Decision: 19 August 2025