Introduction:
In a significant decision addressing the healthcare rights of undertrial prisoners, the Karnataka High Court recently granted interim bail on medical grounds to Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeep Srinivas. Held in custody as an accused in the Renukaswamy murder case, Darshan sought release to undergo spine surgery—a procedure he argued was critical for his health. His legal team presented evidence of his deteriorating condition and emphasized his right to choose his healthcare provider. This decision highlights the balance courts must maintain between the state’s authority over detained individuals and the health and well-being of those in custody.
Senior Advocate C.V. Nagesh, representing Darshan, contended that the actor should be allowed treatment at a hospital and with doctors of his choosing in Mysore. Special Public Prosecutor Prasanna Kumar countered, arguing that a medical board assessment in Bengaluru would be more appropriate, stressing the need for accurate documentation regarding the actor’s health needs. Ultimately, Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty prioritized Darshan’s immediate healthcare needs over procedural concerns, issuing an interim bail order for the treatment.
Petitioner’s Argument:
Darshan’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate C.V. Nagesh, argued that the actor’s spinal ailment had reached a critical state, warranting urgent medical intervention. Darshan’s counsel provided a medical report from a government hospital in Bellary confirming the need for surgery and warning of serious consequences if the condition was left untreated. They pointed out that the petitioner had a right to select his doctor and treatment centre, adding that Darshan preferred Mysore’s Apollo Hospital, which he trusted for the surgery.
Highlighting the actor’s severe physical limitations, Nagesh argued that Darshan could not lift weights, squat, or walk comfortably, making immediate medical attention crucial. Further, the defence raised concerns about Darshan’s safety if he were transported to Bengaluru, where potential witnesses reside, arguing that Mysore was a safer and more practical option for his treatment.
Nagesh also underscored that the petitioner had agreed to bear all medical expenses, stressing that the state would not incur any financial burden for his treatment. His legal team emphasized that the state should not impose restrictions on the choice of treatment, arguing that the fundamental right to healthcare should extend to prisoners.
Respondent’s Argument:
Opposing the bail request, Special Public Prosecutor Prasanna Kumar argued that while the actor might have a spine ailment, immediate surgery was not deemed necessary, according to doctors. The prosecution contended that Darshan should first be referred to a medical board of experts at a government hospital in Bengaluru, such as Victoria or Bowring, to obtain a second opinion regarding his need for surgery.
Kumar raised concerns over the lack of specific details in Darshan’s application, arguing that the petition was vague and did not specify the type of medical procedures required. He asserted that the release should not be indefinite and asked for a temporary bail only if the medical board confirmed the urgent necessity for surgery. Furthermore, Kumar emphasized that granting bail on indefinite medical grounds could set an unfavourable precedent, potentially compromising judicial rigour in handling similar cases.
The prosecutor suggested that if the High Court deemed a medical evaluation necessary, the petitioner should be transported to Bengaluru under police escort, ensuring that the alleged need for surgery was justified and monitored closely. Kumar requested the court’s intervention in setting clear parameters for the duration and purpose of the bail period.
Court’s Judgment and Observations:
Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, presiding over the case, delivered a carefully considered interim order emphasizing the judiciary’s responsibility in protecting prisoner health and well-being. In assessing the case, Justice Shetty addressed the state’s duty to provide adequate healthcare for prisoners, irrespective of their detention status. He noted that Darshan’s condition, as verified by multiple medical professionals, warranted immediate attention to prevent further deterioration.
The court observed that denying timely medical intervention could lead to irreversible health consequences, remarking, “Once health is lost, it cannot be recovered.” Emphasizing the right to adequate medical treatment, the bench rejected the notion that a prisoner’s health needs should wait until reaching an emergency level before intervention. Justice Shetty acknowledged the potential risks of delaying medical care, stating that preserving a detainee’s health was essential, even for an undertrial prisoner.
Rejecting the prosecution’s insistence on a mandatory evaluation by a medical board in Bengaluru, the court recognized the petitioner’s right to select his hospital and doctor, especially since he was willing to cover all expenses. The court acknowledged Darshan’s preference for treatment in Mysore, citing his concerns about safety and practical issues if brought to Bengaluru. Justice Shetty ruled that while the petitioner’s request to receive treatment at Mysore’s Apollo Hospital was justified, the court would maintain oversight by limiting the interim bail to an initial 30-day period, permitting further extensions based on medical updates.
The High Court also refuted the prosecution’s argument that Darshan’s condition did not require urgent intervention, emphasizing that medical decisions should prioritize patient health rather than administrative convenience. Observing the inadequacies in Bellary’s medical facilities, Justice Shetty concluded that the petitioner’s request was reasonable and upheld his right to a safe and trusted healthcare environment.
Additionally, the court stipulated that the interim bail period would remain strictly for medical purposes, underlining that Darshan would be obligated to report back to authorities upon completion of his treatment. Any further requests for extension would require substantiated medical reports and be subject to court approval, ensuring transparency and preventing misuse of the bail.