Bombay High Court
VENKATESWARARAO TIRUMALASHETTYversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the applicant’s medical condition is genuine and serious, warranting the grant of medical bail with conditions.
Summary
The High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Venkateswararao Tirumalashetty, who was in custody for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The applicant, a 57‑year‑old diabetic, suffered gangrene requiring amputation of two toes and ongoing wound care, which the court found could not be adequately provided in prison. The State opposed bail on grounds of possible abscondment and questioned the adequacy of the medical evidence. Relying on a recent Supreme Court precedent, the court held that medical bail may be granted only in exceptional cases where the health condition is serious and cannot be treated in custody. Finding the applicant’s medical plea genuine, the court granted medical bail with a detailed set of conditions, including sureties, regular medical check‑ups, and restrictions on travel and communication with co‑accused.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant’s diabetic foot gangrene constitutes a serious medical condition that justifies bail on medical grounds.
- Whether the risk of the applicant absconding outweighs the need for medical treatment outside prison.
- Whether the applicant’s undertaking and proposed hospital care satisfy the requirements for medical bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 339, 3(5)
Subjects
- medical bail
- diabetic foot
- gangrene
- Section 483
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- health in custody
- bail conditions
Judgment
BA.1017.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1017 OF 2026
Venkateswararao Tirumalashetty .. Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Ganesh Gupta a/w. Shivkumarsingh Bais, Ritik Gupta, Sahil
Ghorpade i/b. GG Legal Associates, Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. Viresh Purwant a/w. Suraj Gadkari, Advocates for Original
Complainant.
Ms. Sangeeta Phad, APP for Respondent – State.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Gupta, learned Advocate for Applicants, Mr.
Purwant, learned Advocate for Original Complainant and Ms. Phad
learned APP for Respondent - State.
2. Present Application is filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by Applicant seeking enlargement on
bail in connection with FIR being CR No.256 of 2025 registered for
offences punishable under Section 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 336(2),
336(3), 338, 339 read with 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Applicant is 57 years old. Prisoners Medical Report dated
16.09.2026 is placed before Court. His medical history in the past one
year prima facie reveals that he was admitted to Sassoon General
1 of 7
BA.1017.2026.doc
Hospital, Pune from 18.12.2025 to 20.12.2025 and from 27.06.2026 to
17.07.2026 and thereafter on 05.08.2026, 29.08.2026 . It is seen that
clinical diagnosis of the Applicant refers to amputation of 4 th and 5th
toe of left lower limb with debridement of left lower limb in view of
diabetic foot in a known case of diabetes mellitus.
4. Pursuant to surgery in July 2026 on medical advice,
Applicant was prescribed daily cleaning and dressing of his diabetic
foot injury and prescribed a diabetic diet. The surgery had to take
place due to repeated complaints of foul smelling discharge from
Applicant’s left foot namely infection of gangrene. Admittedly,
Applicant is in jail hospital and is being administered medication on
medical advice for the last one year since his arrest. The diabetic
wound on his leg is said to be healthy in the Report however Applicant
is admitted to jail hospital and is unable to walk around freely.
Affidavit cum Undertaking dated 18.09.2026 is filed by wife of
Applicant who is a State Government teacher and she has stated that
for entire duration of Applicant’s custody of 12 months in jail,
Applicant is undergoing treatment due to the diabetic foot injury as he
has chronic diabetes mellitus and if not cared for properly, may lead to
further complications and amputation of his left foot. In her Affidavit,
she has stated that she undertakes to provide him with the necessary
support and assistance of his medical treatment at Kavya Hospital in
Guntur, district of Andhra Pradesh and also undertake that the
2 of 7
BA.1017.2026.doc
Applicant shall abide by all bail conditions.
5. Mr. Purwant, learned Advocate for First Informant would
vehemently oppose grant of bail to Applicant on medical grounds on
the ground that the offence of cheating against Applicant is such that
there is every possibility of him absconding and not attending the trial
if he is released from prison. He would submit that Clause 15 of the
Prisoners Medical Health Report classifies status of Applicant’s health
as “at present the prisoner's foot wound is healthy and prisoner has
been kept at Yerwada Prison Hospital, Ward No.1 and treatment is
being administered as per advice of Sassoon General Hospital, Pune
specialists.” He would argue that while it is true that Applicant is
suffering from gangrene and it is Applicant’s case that the same has
spread to the calf of his left foot however Prisoners Medical Report
dated 16.09.2026 does not support this theory. However, in his usual
fairmindedness he would agree that gangrene is a serious disease
which if not cared for properly with medication and treatment, it can
spread and affect the limbs especially in the case of patients with
chronic diabetes mellitus and lead to amputation and serious
complications. Another objection that Mr. Purwant takes is that no
details of Applicant’s hospital treatment in future has been stated in
the Application.
6. Mr. Purwant persuades the Court to consider a recent
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri
3 of 7
BA.1017.2026.doc
Darshan Etc.1 to contend that Supreme Court has consistently held that
bail granted on medical grounds must be based on credible, specific
urgent need and not on general and future apprehension and bare
perusal of medical records and subsequent conduct should not revela
that the medical plea was not vague and grossly exaggerated as it
would defeat the interests of justice. He would forcefully submit that
bail on medical grounds can be granted only in exceptional cases when
the medical condition is serious and accused cannot be treated in
custody and necessary facilities are not available in jail.
7. After going through the material placed on record, I don’t
have the slightest doubt that Applicant’s treatment of his ailment will
be more appropriate and better if he is treated at a hospital of his own
choice rather than in the environment of the jail.
8. The Application is filed in March 2026 and in July 2026,
Applicant was operated upon for amputation of his two toes due to
gangrene and is admittedly adviced to be under constant medication
and treatment. It is seen that wife of Applicant has placed on record
name of the hospital as well as the specialist doctors who will treat
Applicant on his release from prison once he is at home. There is
nothing on record to disbelieve Applicant’s case and his medical
ailment of diabetic foot and that he is suffering from gangrene and he
therefore requires medical care and treatment.
1 Criminal Appeal nos. 3528 – 3534 of 2025
4 of 7
BA.1017.2026.doc
9. I have considered the parameters for grant of medical bail
sought by the Applicant before me and in view of the material placed
before me, I am of the opinion that medical plea before me is genuine
and Applicant requires appropriate medication for his treatment of
gangrene so that it does not spread and lead to further amputation and
most importantly treatment of Applicant outside jail would be much
better that the facilities provided in jail primarily because of his
diabetes diet, his constant monitoring by specialists and daily dressing
of his diabetic foot wound which is susceptible to slightest of infection.
Hence Applicant has made out a case for grant of medical bail.
10. Needless to state that every 6 months the Applicant will
present himself at Sasson General Hospital for a checkup and the Dean
of the said hospital shall, through a committee, examine the status of
Applicant’s health parameters and give opinion in a Report to the
prosecution. Prosecution will be at liberty to approach this Court on
the basis on that Report for seeking custody of the Applicant and for
seeking cancellation of his medical bail.
11. In addition to the above order, Applicant is directed to be
released on Medical bail on following conditions:-
(i) Applicant – Venkateswararao Tirumalashetty be
released on bail, on furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.1,00,000/-
and one or more sureties in the like amount;
(ii) Applicant is permitted to furnish provisional cash bail of
5 of 7
BA.1017.2026.doc
Rs. 10,000/- for his release immediately and file undertaking
that she shall provide one or two sureties in the like amount
of Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of four weeks after his
release which shall be accepted by the Trial Court. Applicant
shall provide sureties as directed;
(iii) Every month after Applicant’s release, Investigating
Officer shall be at liberty to visit the Applicant’s home with 2
days advanced notice to enquire about his health and
rehabilitation and keep a record of the same in writing in the
form of a report for Court’s information if so required later;
(iv) Applicant shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the Court;
(v) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vi) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of his current address and mobile contact number and / or
change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to
time, as applicable;
(vii) Applicant shall surrender his passport with the
Investigating Officer of the concerned police station;
(viii) Applicant shall not indulge in any activity similar to
the activities on the basis of which the Applicant stands
6 of 7
BA.1017.2026.doc
prosecuted;
(ix) Applicant shall not try to establish communication with
any co-accused or any other person involved directly or
indirectly in similar activities, through any mode of
communication;
(x) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
12. Liberty to apply for cancellation of this order to prosecution
in case of any breach of the conditions.
13. It is clarified that the above observations in this order are
limited for the purpose of granting bail only and I have not made any
observations on the merits of the case and the trial shall be adjudicated
on the basis of the evidence uninfluenced by the present order and
strictly in accordance with law. It is also clarified that the common
order is for the sake of convenience and Applicant shall not be
adversely impacted by the conduct of the other Applicant including but
not limited to infringement of bail conditions.
14. Bail Application No.1017 of 2026 is allowed and disposed in
above terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date:
2026.09.23
20:47:32 +0530
7 of 7
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.