Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Monday, granted interim bail to Ved Pal Tanwar for six weeks as he underwent gall bladder surgery. The bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan, noting the objections of ED, observed that “he (Tanwar) has undergone surgery- that is enough. Let him be with his family for a while”. 

Special Public Prosecutor Zoheb Hussain, representing the State, proposed a suggestion that could assist the petitioner. He pointed out that the petitioner relied on medical bills from a private hospital and suggested that AIIMS should examine the petitioner in the meantime.

Senior Advocate Vikas Pahwa, representing the petitioner, objected to this suggestion, stating that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) often directed individuals to AIIMS in such cases, despite the availability of other hospitals in Delhi. SPP Hussain then expressed his readiness to argue the case, emphasizing that the petitioner had already spent 122 days out of custody and that fairness required offering the option of in-prison hospitalization.

Senior Advocate Pahwa countered, highlighting a recurring pattern where the ED repeatedly verified every document submitted by the petitioner as part of the bail process. He referred to the most recent bail extension, granted on December 30th, and argued that the petitioner's interim bail on medical grounds was justified. He underscored that the prosecution complaint had been pending since July 2024 without any cognizance being taken, yet the ED continued to press for custody.

As the hearing progressed, Senior Advocate Pahwa meticulously read through the case file, presenting key dates and arguing that the ED's continuous document verifications made objections unnecessary. He reiterated that his client, who had undergone gall-bladder surgery, was in poor health and deserved interim bail for recovery.

SPP Hussain raised the standard established in the case of Sanjay Jain, prompting the court to verify the facts. The court observed that the petitioner had indeed undergone surgery and required post-surgical care. It acknowledged the necessity for the petitioner to spend time with his family for recovery, but SPP Hussain insisted that this should not influence the main bail application. He also noted that the petitioner's own medical reports indicated a stable condition, to which the court responded that post-surgical care was the primary concern.

In its final order, the court noted that the petitioner had sought interim bail for six weeks due to medical reasons. It acknowledged the gall bladder surgery, verified by the ED, and the recommendation for six weeks of post-operative care. Taking these factors into account, the court granted the petitioner interim bail for six weeks.