Allahabad HC Slams UP Govt For Failing To Take Murder Accused To Hospital For Treatment As Police Force Was Busy In Election Duties

In April 2024, the Additional Sessions Judge directed the Jail Superintendent, District Jail, Deoria, to provide medical treatment to the accused-applicant (Qayamuddin); however, the Jail Superintendent refused to provide treatment, citing a lack of available force due to the Code of Conduct for the Lok Sabha Election. He stated that treatment would be arranged for the applicant once the required force was available.

Hearing his second bail plea in September 2024, a bench of Justice Samit Gopal termed this act of the Jail superintendent as totally unacceptable and uncalled for.

“The accused is in custody under supervision of the State. The State cannot by any stretch decline providing him adequate medical facility on any ground,” the single judge observed as he directed the District Magistrate, Deoria and the Superintendent of Police, Deoria to look into the matter personally and file their personal affidavits, intimating the Court as to why adequate arrangements for surgery of the applicant were denied.

In compliance with the order, the DM and SP concerned filed their affidavits stating that the applicant's treatment has been ongoing at the District Jail, with referrals to the District Hospital, local Medical College, and BRD Medical College for better care.

The bench was also apprised that the applicant received continuous treatment, including surgery on 09.07.2024, and that although the police force was unavailable on specific dates due to election duties, proper medical supervision and treatment were provided to him afterwards.

The Court, though satisfied with the affidavits regarding the medical treatment provided to the applicant, noted that it was an admitted fact that the applicant was not produced before the doctor concerned a total of three times due to the non-availability of police force, as the deployment was for election purposes.

The single remarked that the issue regarding the non-availability of force due to their deployment in the Assembly Elections, due to which the accused-applicant could not be taken to the hospital on three dates for treatment, cannot be appreciated.

“The life of an individual even though he is in jail cannot be taken for ransom for any reason. The State is under a bounden duty to protect the life of a citizen. The State should ensure that timely and proper treatment is available to the jail prisoners irrespective of any activity within the area or within the State,” the court further observed in its order.

Regarding the accused-applicant's non-appearance before the trial court due to his hospitalization, the Court called for a fresh report regarding the applicant's medical condition and the feasibility of his physical appearance before the trial court.

The bench also sought the response of the Superintendent of Police, District Jail, regarding whether the appearance of the accused applicant through video-conferencing before the trial court is possible, if the accused consents, and whether the same is viable.

Seeking a report in 10 days, the matter has been posted for a further hearing on March 6.