Introduction:

The Delhi High Court has granted 30 days of custody bail to an alleged ISIS operative to undergo surgery for an umbilical hernia at a private hospital of his choice in Delhi-NCR, while declining his request to travel to Bombay for treatment and to meet his family. The Court balanced the accused’s medical needs against the concerns raised by the National Investigation Agency regarding his alleged links and network in Maharashtra.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan passed the order while hearing an appeal filed by Farhan Ansar Suse against the order of the Special NIA Court dated August 1, which had rejected his application for interim bail on medical grounds. The matter arose in the context of a prosecution in which the NIA has invoked Sections 120B and 387 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13, 18, 18A, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The case concerns allegations of a larger conspiracy allegedly connected with the activities of ISIS in India. According to the NIA, Suse was allegedly associated with deceased accused Saquib Nachan, who the agency claims was operating on behalf of ISIS in India. The prosecution has alleged that an extortion network was being operated for raising funds for the organisation and that Suse circulated messages on behalf of ISIS, took an oath of allegiance to the organisation and collected substantial amounts of cash from businessmen in the Padgha area of Maharashtra.

The allegations further include claims that members of the alleged group threatened businessmen and extorted money in the name of ISIS. The prosecution case was set out in a chargesheet filed in March 2024, followed by a supplementary chargesheet in June 2024. The trial has presently reached the stage of arguments on charge.

Against this backdrop, Suse approached the Court seeking interim bail on medical grounds. His medical condition included an umbilical hernia, bronchial asthma and Type-II diabetes. He had been examined at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, where surgery for the hernia was recommended.

The request before the High Court was therefore not concerned with determining whether the allegations against Suse were ultimately proved. The Division Bench specifically confined its consideration to whether he should be permitted temporary release from custody, or otherwise be taken to a private hospital, to undergo the medically required procedure.

Suse’s case was that he had already spent approximately two years and nine months in custody and that the prosecution involved a large number of witnesses. According to his counsel, more than 500 witnesses were to be examined. It was argued that the allegations concerning his alleged association with ISIS were yet to be established at trial and that the pendency of the proceedings should not prevent him from obtaining necessary medical treatment.

The appellant also sought permission to travel to Bombay, where he wished to meet his family and undergo treatment at a private hospital. The request was opposed by the NIA, which relied upon the seriousness of the allegations and the alleged network of the appellant in Padgha and neighbouring areas of Maharashtra.

The High Court ultimately adopted a middle course. It did not permit Suse to travel to Bombay, but it held that he could not be prevented from obtaining treatment at a private hospital at his own expense. The Court therefore permitted him to choose a private hospital in Delhi-NCR and granted him custody bail for 30 days for that limited purpose.

The order, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 868, is significant because it illustrates the manner in which courts can address medical needs of an accused in custody while simultaneously imposing safeguards designed to protect the integrity of an ongoing investigation or trial. Rather than granting unrestricted interim bail, the Court permitted treatment within a geographically restricted area and imposed stringent conditions governing contact and communication.

Arguments of the Parties:

On behalf of Farhan Ansar Suse, the appellant’s counsel primarily relied upon his medical condition and the need for surgery. The Court was informed that Suse was suffering from an umbilical hernia in addition to bronchial asthma and Type-II diabetes. His medical condition had been assessed at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, and the hospital had recommended surgery for the hernia.

The defence argued that the need for medical treatment was not merely a matter of preference. The appellant required a surgical procedure, and his continued incarceration should not operate as an obstacle to receiving appropriate treatment. While he had been receiving treatment through the prison and government medical system, the defence sought permission for him to obtain treatment at a private hospital.

Counsel also emphasised that Suse had already spent approximately two years and nine months in custody. This period of incarceration was highlighted in support of the argument that a limited period of interim bail for medical treatment would not prejudice the prosecution.

The defence further submitted that the allegations connecting Suse with ISIS had not yet been established at trial. The prosecution case remained at the stage of arguments on charge, and the allegations contained in the chargesheet could not be treated as established guilt.

The defence also drew attention to the scale of the prosecution. It was submitted that more than 500 witnesses were proposed to be examined. The argument was that the large number of witnesses and the stage of the proceedings demonstrated that the trial was likely to take considerable time, making it important that the appellant be permitted to address his medical condition appropriately.

The appellant sought permission to travel to Bombay for this purpose. His counsel submitted that he wished not only to obtain medical treatment there but also to meet his family. The request was therefore broader than merely being taken to a hospital in Delhi under custody.

The defence position was that temporary release for medical treatment, subject to appropriate conditions, would adequately address any concerns regarding the appellant’s availability. The request was presented as a limited medical intervention rather than an attempt to secure unrestricted liberty during the pendency of the criminal case.

The NIA strongly opposed the request.

The investigating agency submitted that Suse was not merely an ordinary accused seeking medical treatment but was alleged to be an active member of ISIS in India. According to the NIA, he was one of the chief conspirators associated with co-accused Saqib Nachan.

The agency relied upon the allegations contained in the chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet, including the alleged conspiracy to support ISIS through an extortion network. The prosecution alleged that businessmen in the Padgha area of Maharashtra had been targeted for collection of money and that the funds were intended to support ISIS-related activities.

The NIA further alleged that Suse had circulated messages on behalf of the organisation and had taken an oath of allegiance to ISIS. It also alleged that he had collected substantial amounts of cash from businessmen in the Padgha area.

The prosecution therefore argued that permitting Suse to travel to Maharashtra would create concerns that went beyond the question of medical treatment. The agency specifically relied upon his alleged network in Padgha and neighbouring parts of Maharashtra in opposing the request to travel to Bombay.

The NIA also submitted that Suse was already receiving appropriate medical treatment in Delhi. According to the agency, there was consequently no necessity to permit him to travel outside Delhi merely to obtain medical attention.

The prosecution’s objection thus rested on two principal considerations. First, it maintained that the appellant’s medical needs were already being addressed. Second, given the nature of the allegations and the alleged network attributed to him in Maharashtra, unrestricted movement outside Delhi could create concerns regarding the prosecution’s case and the ongoing proceedings.

The competing submissions placed the Court in a position where it had to balance two considerations. On one side was the appellant’s established need for surgery and his right to obtain appropriate medical care while in custody. On the other was the prosecution’s concern that temporary release and travel to Maharashtra could provide an opportunity for contact with persons connected with the alleged network.

The Court consequently had to determine whether the medical requirement could be accommodated without granting the appellant the broader liberty sought by him.

Court’s Judgment:

The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan allowed the appellant’s plea to the limited extent of permitting him to undergo surgery and obtain medical treatment at a private hospital in Delhi-NCR while remaining under custody.

At the outset, the Court made clear that it was not examining the merits of the allegations relating to ISIS or deciding whether the appellant had committed the offences with which he had been charged.

The Bench specifically observed that, at that stage, it was concerned only with the question of interim bail arising from the appellant’s medical condition. This distinction was important because the allegations against Suse involved serious offences under the IPC and UAPA, but those allegations were matters for the criminal proceedings and trial.

The Court noted that the “admitted position” was that the appellant required surgery for an umbilical hernia. It also took note of the fact that he had been receiving treatment at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital.

The fact that the appellant was already receiving treatment in the government hospital did not, however, mean that he could be prevented from obtaining treatment at a private hospital at his own expense.

The Bench observed that the reasons for choosing a private facility did not need to be examined in detail because a person who is medically unwell cannot simply be prevented from obtaining appropriate treatment at a private hospital at his own expense.

This formed the foundation for the Court’s decision to permit the appellant to obtain treatment outside the government hospital system.

At the same time, the Court declined to accept the request to travel to Bombay. The restriction was directly connected to the concerns raised by the NIA regarding the appellant’s alleged network in Padgha and neighbouring areas of Maharashtra.

The Court considered that permitting the appellant to travel to Maharashtra was not feasible at that stage, particularly in view of the allegations concerning his connections in the region.

The Court therefore separated the medical request from the geographical travel request. It accepted that surgery was required and that the appellant could obtain it privately, but found no sufficient reason to permit him to travel to a State where the prosecution alleged that he had an existing network.

The Bench consequently ordered that Suse could undergo treatment at any private hospital of his choice in Delhi-NCR while remaining under custody.

This arrangement is different from ordinary interim bail. The appellant was not granted unrestricted liberty to move freely. Instead, the Court structured the relief around the specific purpose for which it was required: medical treatment.

The Court granted custody bail for a period of 30 days. During this period, the appellant would be permitted to be admitted to the private hospital selected by him, but the expenses of treatment would have to be borne by him.

The procedure for exercising this permission was also clearly prescribed. The appellant was required to communicate his choice of hospital to the concerned jail superintendent. He could then be admitted to that hospital while remaining under custody.

The Court further protected against unnecessary prolongation of the custody-bail period. It directed that if the appellant was declared medically fit following the operation before the expiry of the 30-day period, he would be shifted back to jail.

Any request for extension beyond the initial 30 days was also not made automatic. The Court indicated that any extension would depend upon medical advice.

This condition ensured that the temporary medical relief would remain connected to the actual duration of the treatment rather than becoming an unrestricted period of release.

The Bench also imposed significant restrictions on the persons who could accompany or communicate with the appellant.

While admitted to the private hospital, Suse could be accompanied by any two persons from his immediate family, specifically his spouse or any of his children.

However, the Court expressly prohibited him from indulging in communications or meetings with other relatives, friends or acquaintances, whether through mobile communication or otherwise.

The restriction went even further in relation to persons named in the chargesheet. The appellant was prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, with any person named in the chargesheet.

These conditions were clearly designed to ensure that the medical concession did not become an opportunity to interfere with the criminal proceedings, communicate with alleged associates or otherwise affect the prosecution’s case.

The order thus demonstrates the Court’s attempt to create a controlled arrangement in which the accused could receive necessary medical treatment without exposing the prosecution to the risks associated with unrestricted temporary release.

The medical circumstances were treated as a legitimate basis for limited relief, but the Court did not disregard the prosecution’s concerns arising from the allegations. Instead, those concerns were addressed through the conditions attached to the custody bail.

The Court’s reasoning also reflects the established principle that incarceration does not extinguish an accused person’s right to necessary medical care. A person in custody remains entitled to appropriate treatment, although the manner in which such treatment is provided can be regulated by the court in light of the circumstances of the case.

In the present case, the Court found that there was no justification for preventing the appellant from obtaining private treatment at his own expense. At the same time, the Court was not persuaded that medical treatment required travel to Bombay.

The geographic restriction was particularly significant. Delhi-NCR was considered sufficient to facilitate the required surgery while reducing the concerns associated with the appellant’s alleged connections in Maharashtra.

The Court’s order also carefully preserved the distinction between treatment and family contact. The appellant’s desire to meet his family did not automatically justify travel to Bombay. The Court permitted limited support from his spouse or children during hospitalisation but did not permit unrestricted interaction with relatives, friends or acquaintances.

The prohibition on communication with persons named in the chargesheet was especially important given the nature of the prosecution case. Since the NIA alleged a wider conspiracy involving several persons, the restriction sought to prevent the appellant from using the temporary medical arrangement to establish or renew contact with individuals connected with the prosecution’s allegations.

The order therefore does not amount to a finding on the truth or otherwise of the allegations against Suse. The Court expressly confined itself to the medical issue. The allegations that he was an active member of ISIS, had taken an oath of allegiance, circulated messages or participated in an alleged extortion network remain matters to be adjudicated in the criminal proceedings.

Likewise, the Court did not decide whether the evidence collected by the NIA was sufficient to establish guilt. The trial was at the stage of arguments on charge, and the merits of the prosecution case were outside the limited scope of the present appeal.

The decision also demonstrates how courts can tailor interim relief rather than adopting an all-or-nothing approach. The appellant sought permission to travel to Bombay, but the Court found that the same objective of obtaining medical treatment could be achieved within Delhi-NCR. It therefore granted the medical relief while withholding the broader travel permission.

The final arrangement was consequently precise: the appellant was granted 30 days of custody bail for surgery and treatment; he could choose a private hospital in Delhi-NCR; he would remain under custody during hospitalisation; he would bear the medical expenses; he could be accompanied by his spouse or one of his children, with a maximum of two immediate family members; he could not communicate with other relatives, friends or acquaintances; and he could not communicate directly or indirectly with persons named in the chargesheet.

The Court further made clear that if he became medically fit before the 30-day period ended, he would be returned to jail. Any further extension would depend upon medical advice rather than being granted automatically.

The ruling in Farhan Ansar Suse (In JC) v. NIA, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 868, therefore illustrates a carefully limited exercise of judicial discretion. The High Court recognised the need for surgery and the importance of access to private medical treatment, while simultaneously taking into account the prosecution’s concerns regarding the alleged network of the accused in Maharashtra.

Ultimately, the Court did not allow the seriousness of the allegations to become a reason for denying necessary medical treatment altogether, nor did it allow the medical request to become a basis for unrestricted travel. Instead, it fashioned a controlled 30-day custody-bail arrangement that addressed the immediate medical requirement while maintaining safeguards relevant to the pending criminal proceedings.

The order thus underscores that medical relief to an accused in custody can be granted on carefully defined terms. At the same time, where the prosecution raises specific concerns regarding movement, association or communication, the Court can impose conditions designed to preserve the integrity of the ongoing proceedings. In this case, the result was a limited medical concession without permitting the appellant to travel to Maharashtra.