2018 ALL MR (Cri) 899 (S.C.)
(SUPREME COURT)
RANJAN GOGOI AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
Jaya Talakshi Chheda Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Criminal Appeal No.1808 of 2017
24th October, 2017.
Petitioner Counsel: Ms. MEENAKSHI ARORA, Sr. Adv., Mr. RAMA D. PAWADE, Mr. SUBODH S. PATIL, Mr. AKHIL NENE
Respondent Counsel: Mr. NISHANT R. KATNESHWARKAR, Adv., Mr. DEEPAK THAKRE
Constitution of India, Art.21 - Right of accused to undergo treatment - Requirement of accused to undergo Angioplasty is not in dispute - Accused is averse to taking treatment in Govt. hospital on account of fact that her son co-accused had died while taking treatment in Govt. Hospital - Hence, accused permitted to undergo surgery in private hospital of her choice and at her own cost. (Para 3)
JUDGMENT
2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
3. Taking into account the fact that the appellant's requirement to undergo Surgery/Angioplasty is not in dispute, we find the prayers made by the appellant for being treated in a private hospital of her choice and at her own cost to be reasonable, particularly, in a situation where she is averse to taking treatment in the Government Hospital on account of the fact that her son, a co-accused, had died while undergoing treatment in a Government Hospital. We, therefore, modify the order of the High Court; allow this appeal and permit the appellant to undergo Surgery/Angioplasty in a private hospital of her choice and at her own cost details of which will be provided to the concerned Jail Authorities whereafter the concerned Jail Authorities will work out the necessary details so as to enable the appellant to have the requisite treatment. The appellant may move the High Court for grant of interim bail as and when the schedule and other details of the treatment is finalized.
4. With the aforesaid modification of the order of the High Court, the present appeal is disposed of.