Doctor’s Plea for Prisoner’s Presence With Ailing Mother Inappropriate | Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Interim Bail Under NDPS Act
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth dismissed a petition seeking interim regular bail on the ground of medical exigency concerning the petitioner’s mother. The Court held that no ground was made out for granting interim bail, noting that the petitioner’s family members, including his wife and brothers, were available to take care of his mother. The Bench also observed that a doctor’s recommendation urging authorities to allow the petitioner to remain by his mother’s side was inappropriate. The final directive categorically dismissed the petition.
The petition was filed under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, arising from a case registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala. The matter concerned a recovery of 255 grams of Alprazolam, a substance categorized as a commercial quantity under the Act.
The petitioner initially secured interim bail from the trial court on 04.07.2019 because the Forensic Science Laboratory report had not yet been received. Subsequently, upon receipt of the report identifying the contraband as Alprazolam, the trial court cancelled the interim bail on 09.03.2021 and issued non-bailable warrants.
A second anticipatory bail plea filed before the trial court was dismissed on 20.03.2024. Later, the petitioner approached the High Court, but that petition was withdrawn on 28.05.2024. The petitioner ultimately surrendered on 14.05.2025 and has remained in custody since then. Charges in the case have also been framed.
The present petition was filed for interim regular bail for six weeks, citing urgent medical needs of the petitioner’s widowed mother, supported by a medical certificate dated 09.07.2025. The certificate, issued by Dr. Vikrant Bhatia, recorded that the petitioner’s mother suffered from an inferior myocardial infarction with elevated cardiac markers and required surgical intervention. The certificate stated: “For the sake of human life, I humbly request the respected higher jail authorities to allow her son to be her side during the tenure of her treatment.”
On 30.07.2025, the Court issued notice of motion and directed the State to file a status report clarifying the medical condition of the petitioner’s mother and whether other family members were available to care for her. The matter was adjourned to 11.08.2025.
In response, the State submitted a status report dated 18.08.2025 through an affidavit by Hargurdev Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur Lodhi. The report stated that the petitioner’s wife Baljit Kaur and his three brothers Amar Singh, Jarnail Singh, and Jaswinder Singh were present to take care of their mother, as they lived together in a joint family. It further recorded that the petitioner’s mother had undergone treatment for twelve hours on 09.07.2025 and was advised surgery but had not undergone the procedure. As of 31.07.2025, she was residing at home.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth recorded detailed observations regarding the plea for interim bail. The Court noted: “In view of above, no ground is made out to grant interim regular bail to the petitioner on account of medical health condition of the mother of petitioner.”
The Bench further scrutinized the medical certificate produced by the petitioner and stated: “Moreover, petitioner himself has appended his mother’s medical certificate dated 09.07.2025 issued by one Dr. Vikram Bhatia, and it is quite surprising that even the treating doctor himself has requested the jail authorities to allow the petitioner to be his mother’s side during the time of her treatment. Such a recommendation is inappropriate on the part of any doctor, while issuing any medical certificate regarding health of someone, who is simply a patient for treatment before him/her.”
The Court also relied upon the State’s report stating the presence of other family members capable of caring for the petitioner’s mother, which negated the necessity of the petitioner’s release.
Justice Sanjay Vashisth concluded the matter with a categorical dismissal of the petition. The final order stated: “Accordingly, present petition is hereby dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Aditya Anand, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Jasdeep Singh, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
Case Title: Gurnam Singh Alias Gama Alias Gamma v. State of Punjab
Neutral Citation: 2005: PHC:108210
Case Number: CRM-M-40754-2025
Bench: Justice Sanjay Vashisth
