Farhan Ansari Suse UAPA Custody Bail: Delhi HC Allows Medical Leave

• The Delhi High Court granted Farhan Ansari Suse, a UAPA accused, 30-day custody bail for an umbilical hernia surgery.
• Suse is permitted to receive treatment at a private hospital of his choice in Delhi-NCR, bearing all expenses.
• The court denied his request for treatment in Mumbai due to concerns about his alleged network in Maharashtra.
• Strict conditions include remaining in custody and a prohibition on communicating with relatives, friends, or anyone named in the chargesheet.
• Suse faces NIA allegations of extortion and supporting ISIS activities, with charges under IPC and UAPA sections.

The court's decision underscores a judicial balancing act, affirming an accused's right to necessary medical care while imposing stringent conditions to mitigate potential security risks.

The Delhi High Court has approved a 30-day custody bail for Farhan Ansari Suse, an individual accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), to facilitate his treatment for an umbilical hernia. The decision, handed down by a division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan, permits Suse to undergo surgery at a private hospital of his choosing within the Delhi-National Capital Region (NCR).

This ruling came as a result of an appeal filed by Suse against an August 1 order from the Patiala House Court, which had previously denied his request for interim bail on medical grounds. While granting the temporary release for medical purposes, the High Court stipulated that Suse must remain in custody throughout the 30-day period, commencing from the date of his admission to the private medical facility. All associated treatment expenses are to be borne by Suse himself.

Crucially, the court imposed strict communication restrictions during this period. Suse is prohibited from contacting or meeting any relatives, friends, or acquaintances, whether through mobile communication or other means. Furthermore, he is explicitly restrained from direct or indirect communication with any individual named in the chargesheet pertaining to his case. These conditions underscore the court's intent to balance medical necessity with security concerns.

Farhan Ansari Suse faces serious charges stemming from a case registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in November 2023. The allegations against him involve extortion and providing support for the activities of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The NIA has formally chargesheeted Suse under Sections 120B and 387 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alongside several provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, specifically Sections 13, 18, 18A, 20, 38, and 39.

The agency filed its primary chargesheet on March 21, 2024, followed by a first supplementary chargesheet on June 3, 2024. According to the supplementary document, Suse and other co-accused were allegedly involved in a conspiracy with Saquib Nachan, who the NIA claims operated for ISIS in India before his death. The NIA further alleges that Suse disseminated messages on behalf of ISIS, pledged allegiance to the organization, and collected substantial cash amounts from businessmen in Padgha, Maharashtra, purportedly to fund ISIS operations. He is described by the agency as one of the alleged prime conspirators associated with Nachan, part of a larger network involved in spreading ISIS-related messages, taking oaths, and fundraising in the Padgha area.

During the proceedings, Suse's senior counsel argued that the primary accusation against his client was extortion, with the alleged connection to ISIS yet to be definitively established at trial. The defense also highlighted that Suse has already spent approximately two years and nine months in custody and that over 500 witnesses are still awaiting examination in the case. NIA counsel Asmita Singh opposed the bail plea, citing the gravity of the allegations.

The High Court's decision to grant medical custody bail, while imposing specific geographical and communication constraints, reflects a careful consideration of the facts. Suse had initially sought permission to receive treatment at a private hospital in Mumbai. However, the bench declined this request, stating that it was "not considered feasible at this stage." This denial was based on the alleged network attributed to Suse in Padgha and neighboring areas of Maharashtra, indicating a concern for potential security risks or flight hazards if he were permitted to travel to that region.

Despite denying the Mumbai request, the court affirmed Suse's right to choose a private medical facility for his treatment. It observed that a medically unwell accused person should not be prevented from undergoing necessary treatment at a private hospital, provided they bear the costs. This principle allowed Suse to select any private hospital within the Delhi-NCR area, ensuring access to specialized care while maintaining judicial oversight through the custody bail framework. The court's decision underscores a judicial balancing act, affirming an accused's right to necessary medical care while imposing stringent conditions to mitigate potential security risks.

This ruling provides a precedent for lawyers seeking medical custody bail for UAPA accused, illustrating the Delhi High Court's approach to balancing an accused's right to treatment with security concerns, including geographical restrictions and communication limitations. It informs strategy for similar applications, particularly concerning high-profile cases where the choice of medical facility and communication are critical considerations.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law