Humanitarian Grounds Warrant Grant Of Temporary Bail Under Section 389 CrPC To Attend Critically Ill Relative Even If Sentence Suspension Was Rejected: Supreme Court

"The critical condition of the petitioner's step-brother constitutes a circumstance warranting indulgence. No prejudice is likely to be caused by permitting the petitioner to attend to his ailing step-brother for a short duration, particularly when his liberty can be adequately regulated by imposing stringent conditions."

NEW DELHI — Observing that the critical medical condition of a convict's family member constitutes a circumstance warranting judicial indulgence on humanitarian grounds, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh on October 27, 2026 extended the temporary bail granted to a convict from one day to three days, holding that regulated liberty causes no prejudice to the prosecution.

The petitioner stands convicted for various offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 189, 332, 353, 386, 294(b), 506(2), 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 25(1-a) of the Arms Act, 1959, having been sentenced to seven years of imprisonment. Although the High Court of Gujarat admitted his criminal appeal, it had rejected his application for suspension of substantive sentence. Subsequently, the High Court permitted his temporary release for merely twelve hours on a single day to attend to his step-brother who was undergoing critical treatment at Surat, prompting the petitioner to approach the Apex Court seeking an enlargement of the duration.

Whether a convict whose substantive prayer for suspension of sentence stands rejected can be granted an extended duration of temporary bail on humanitarian grounds to attend to a critically ill family member.

Whether the availability of other family members or alleged estrangement disentitles a convict from seeking temporary enlargement to make financial and medical arrangements for an ailing relative.

Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the one-day interim bail from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. granted by the High Court was grossly inadequate. Counsel highlighted the significant travel distance between the jail and the hospital, alongside the immediate necessity of arranging finances and specialized medical treatment for the patient, emphasizing that the convict had never breached earlier bail conditions.

Opposing the plea, the Solicitor General of India contended that the petitioner and the ailing step-brother were allegedly not on speaking terms, rendering the convict's presence unessential. It was further argued that other real and step-siblings were present to look after the patient, and should any relief be considered, the logistical expenses of escorting security personnel must fall entirely on the convict.

Critical medical distress of immediate kin justifies temporary release on humanitarian considerations.

Evaluating the medical records and the unique circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner's plea merited positive consideration. The bench emphasized that the grave condition of the convict's step-brother warranted immediate indulgence, clarifying that granting a short duration of temporary liberty accompanied by strict surveillance poses no prejudice to the administration of justice.

The Court observed that personal liberty in such distress scenarios can be prudently balanced with custodial safeguards. Consequently, the bench modified the High Court's direction and enlarged the temporary bail duration to three days from the date of actual release, subject to the furnishing of a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 before the jail authorities.

Stringent safeguards and financial responsibility imposed to balance humanitarian relief and custody.

Directing that the convict be escorted under minimum police security from jail to Surat and back, the Court mandated that all expenses incurred towards escort and transportation shall be borne entirely by the petitioner. The bench restricted the convict's physical movement strictly within the territorial precincts of Surat, confined solely to hospital attendance and treatment facilitation.

To prevent any abuse of judicial leniency, the Court explicitly prohibited the petitioner from addressing public gatherings, taking part in political activities, speaking to the media, or issuing public statements throughout the interim release period. The bench ordered the convict to surrender immediately before the jail superintendent upon the expiry of three days without awaiting further notice.

The Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petition by modifying the High Court's order, extending the petitioner's temporary bail to three days with strict conditions regarding police escort costs, geographical confinement, and public gag restrictions.

Date of Decision: October 27, 2026

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh

Case No.: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction - PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 20580/2026 WITH IA NO. 328937/2026