In a significant ruling emphasizing the sanctity of personal liberty and the fundamental right to health, the Jharkhand High Court has allowed an individual facing criminal proceedings to travel for specialized medical treatment. The Court observed that the "Right to Life" enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not merely about physical existence but includes the right to protect one's health through accessible and adequate medical care.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi passed the order while hearing a petition filed by an individual (the petitioner) who sought a modification of bail conditions or specific permission to travel to a premier medical institution outside the state/country for urgent health concerns.

The case involves a petitioner who is currently facing trial in a matter being investigated/prosecuted. As is common in high-stakes legal battles, the petitioner was bound by certain restrictive conditions imposed during the grant of bail, which typically include surrendering the passport or a prohibition on leaving the jurisdiction of the court without prior permission.

The petitioner approached the High Court claiming to be suffering from serious health complications—specifically cited in recent proceedings as chronic ailments requiring specialized intervention not readily available within the local jurisdiction. The petitioner sought the court's intervention to travel to renowned centers (such as AIIMS or other specialized institutes) to ensure the best possible medical outcome.

The prosecution, however, opposed the plea, raising concerns about the potential for the accused to flee from justice, the gravity of the underlying offences, and the possibility of the trial being delayed if the petitioner remained away for an extended period.

Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, while delivering the judgment, took a deeply humanistic approach. The Court relied heavily on the landmark Supreme Court precedent in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, reiterating that the freedom to go abroad or travel for one's well-being is a genuine human right.

The Court noted:

"The right to life is a fundamental right, and it is the accountability of the State to provide or permit access to basic amenities for securing health. There is no reason to restrict a person to a particular hospital or location when their life is at stake."

The Bench highlighted that while the legal process must take its course, a person does not lose their fundamental rights simply because they are an accused. The preservation of human life is the highest duty of the judiciary. The Court remarked that "humanities like marriage, family, and friendship," and most importantly, "health," are aspects of private life that should not be unnecessarily affected by the refusal of freedom of movement.

To balance the interests of justice with the petitioner's health rights, the Court examined the "flight risk" (the chance of the person running away). Justice Dwivedi observed that the petitioner had a record of appearing before the authorities and had deep roots in society.

The Court held that the mere existence of an FIR or a pending trial should not be a "perpetual cage" that prevents a citizen from seeking life-saving treatment. The Bench noted that if the petitioner is willing to furnish adequate undertakings and security, the state's concern regarding their return can be effectively mitigated.

The High Court permitted the petitioner to travel for medical treatment subject to several stringent conditions to ensure the trial remains on track:

Undertaking of Return: The petitioner must file an affidavit/undertaking affirming that they will return to the country/jurisdiction within the specified period (e.g., eight weeks).
Security/Bail Bonds: The petitioner may be required to furnish additional security or a bank guarantee as a safeguard against any potential default.
Representation through Counsel: To ensure the trial is not hampered, the Court directed that the petitioner’s counsel must be present on all dates of the hearing in the trial court during the petitioner's absence.
Information to Authorities: The petitioner is required to share their detailed itinerary and contact information with the investigating agency or the concerned court.

This ruling by the Jharkhand High Court is a breath of fresh air for many litigants who find themselves "trapped" in legal procedures while their health deteriorates. It reinforces a growing judicial trend in India where the "Right to Health" is being interpreted as an integral part of the "Right to Life."

By allowing travel for treatment, the Court has sent a clear message: the law is not a heartless machine. It recognizes that "justice" also includes the fairness of allowing a person to stay alive and healthy enough to face their trial.

In a country where legal battles can drag on for years, the Jharkhand High Court’s decision serves as a vital reminder that the procedure must not become the punishment. By prioritizing medical necessity over procedural rigidity, Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi has upheld the true spirit of the Constitution.

For the legal fraternity, this judgment provides a solid precedent for seeking similar reliefs in cases where health conditions are critical, ensuring that the "scales of justice" remain balanced with the "heart of humanity."

Case Title: Madhu Singh vs. State of Jharkhand

Bench: Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi