A single bench chaired by Judge Nitin Sambre said Wadhawan’s argument that he should be immediately released on provisional bail for medical reasons was “not justified”.
He said that the denial of a medical bond was in no way a violation of Wadhawan’s fundamental right to life as he had received adequate medical treatment by the state prison authorities whenever necessary. .
Wadhawan, who recently underwent surgery for the implantation of a pacemaker, had requested his release on bail so that he could request his discharge from the city’s KEM municipal hospital, where he is currently recovering while in detention. court, and move to a private hospital on bail.
Wadhawan had said in his plea that he suffered from severe co-morbidities, that his immune system was compromised after he recently contracted COVID-19, and that he was likely to contract infections and illnesses at the municipal hospital due to the high attendance. the hospital received.
He added that KEM Hospital does not have an intensive care facility specifically designed for people with heart problems.
State attorney Prajakta Shinde, however, opposed Wadhawan’s request for bail.
She said state prison authorities had provided her with timely and specialized medical care in public and municipal hospitals since her arrest.
Shinde said authorities at KEM Hospital themselves recommended that Wadhawan be transferred to another hospital for pacemaker implantation surgery, as the hospital did not have such a facility. However, now that the operation was over, Wadhawan could continue his medical treatment at KEM.
Shinde also submitted documents to show that KEM Hospital is currently undergoing renovations and arrangements are being made to set up a cardiac intensive care unit within a few weeks.
The court took note of the state’s comments and agreed that Wadhawan had indeed received the âbest possible medical treatmentâ by state prison authorities whenever necessary.
“In the context of the foregoing (the treatment having been provided by the state authorities), it can only be inferred that the applicant’s right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution to receive appropriate medical treatment in a super-specialized hospital is violated, “the High Court said. .
“On the contrary, various medical treatments which are given to the Applicant have proved to be life-saving at this stage. The Applicant’s assertion that he should be immediately released on provisional bail for medical reasons is not justified. It lacks merit and is rejected, “he added.
The court, however, granted Wadhawan the freedom to address the court in an emergency.