Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, rejected the petition filed by conman Sukesh Chandrashekhar challenging his transfer from Mandoli Jail to Tihar Jail on medical grounds. The court noted that “treatment which the petitioner is undergoing can easily be made available to him at other Jail complexes”. 

The bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that directions that interfere with the jail’s administration should not be issued unless there were compelling reasons or evidence of mala fides on the part of the Jail Administration.

Sukesh Chandrashekhar approached the court seeking an order directing the jail authorities not to transfer him from Mandoli Jail to any other facility under Rule 667(1) of the Delhi Prison Rules, 2018. Sukesh further requested that he be given a four-day advance notice in the event of a transfer to any other court.

Sukesh has been in judicial custody since 2017 and per a medical report of 2023, he has been suffering from Cholelithiasis (gallbladder stones) and also has borderline Splenomegaly and Grade-1 Haemorrhoids. He contends that any transfer would disrupt his medical care and therefore requests that the court refrain from approving his transfer.

Additional Standing Counsel Sanjeev Bhandari, for the state, submitted that the petition was an attempt to avoid relocation from Mandoli Jail and essentially seeks to circumvent the decision, which may have been made by the Jail Authorities.

The court noted that per the medical report, Sukesh was taken to Safdarjung Hospital and RML Hospital for his physical ailments, and to higher medical centers as necessary. Therefore, for his physiological conditions, he received treatment at external hospitals.

It was asserted that the petitioner was suffering from anxiety and was under the care of a psychiatrist, with his current condition being stable. However, it was noted that the Central Jail, Tihar, had similar psychiatric treatment facilities. 

The court, therefore, remarked, “Such directions which interfere with the administration of Jail should not be made unless there are any compelling reasons or mala fides reflected on the part of Jail Administration”. 

The court noted that Sukesh failed to establish any such ground. Considering that the petitioner’s ongoing treatment could easily be provided at other jail complexes, the court found no need to issue directions to prevent his transfer to other jails, should it be required for administrative reasons. However, it was directed that Sukesh be given three days' notice in case of any such transfer.

Background:

Recently, the Rouse Avenue Court granted bail to Sukesh Chandrashekhar citing "any interpretation which defeats the pre-eminence of bail over jail should be avoided”.

Sukesh Chandrashekar, facing 34 criminal cases, was accused of orchestrating an INR 215 crore heist while being imprisoned by deceiving Shivinder Mohan Singh of Ranbaxy. The Supreme Court ordered his transfer from Tihar Jail to Mandoli Jail, following his plea citing threats to his life. Chandrashekar's lawyer claimed extortion in jail, while ASG SV Raju noted that the accused was unable to continue his criminal activities due to the transfer of supportive officials. 

Case Title: Sukesh Chandrashekhar v State (2024:DHC:7639)