Dismissed¶23

Rupak Chaterjee @ Aryan Ved Chaterjee @ Rehan v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC9 Sept 2025BAIL APPLN./3034/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interim bail on medical grounds; hernia (Right Inguinal/Scrotal) surgery; private hospital treatment while in judicial custody; availability of laparoscopic surgery in government hospitals; Section 376(2)(N)/419 IPC; FIR no. 416/2020, PS Karol Bagh; DDU hospital advice; Delhi High Court bail application dismissed 09.09.2025; liberty for in-custody treatment at own expense.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to obtain treatment/surgery from a private hospital while remaining in custody, at his own expense and if so advised by the doctor; no monetary relief awarded. ¶23

Rupak Chaterjee @ Aryan Ved Chaterjee @ Rehan Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to obtain treatment/surgery from a private hospital while remaining in custody, at his own expense and if so advised by the doctor; no monetary relief awarded.

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an accused in FIR no. 416/2020 (PS Karol Bagh) under Section 376(2)(N)/419 IPC, should be granted interim bail for 60 days to undergo surgery for Right Inguinal Scrotal Hernia at a reputed private hospital, when treatment is stated to be available while he remains in custody.

¶16

Court's answer

The petitioner could undergo surgery while remaining in custody - at some other government hospital where laparoscopic treatment is available, or at a private hospital at his own expense - so there was no justification for releasing him on interim bail for the surgery.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The application for interim bail was dismissed, the Court finding no justification for its grant.

¶23

Key takeaways

Notwithstanding dismissal, the petitioner is at liberty to obtain treatment from a private hospital while staying in custody, at his own expense, if so advised by the doctor.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Ravinder Dudeja, J.; order dated 09.09.2025) dismissed an application seeking 60 days' interim bail filed by an accused of FIR no. 416/2020, PS Karol Bagh, under Section 376(2)(N)/419 IPC, who sought release to undergo surgery for Right Inguinal Scrotal Hernia at a private hospital, DDU hospital lacking robotic laparoscopic facilities. The jail medical report showed a stable condition and the petitioner's refusal of government-hospital surgery. Holding that there was no justification for interim bail because the petitioner could undergo surgery at another government hospital with laparoscopic treatment, or at a private hospital at his own expense, while staying in custody, the Court nevertheless granted him liberty to take private-hospital treatment in custody at his own expense if so advised by the doctor.

¶1

$~10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- BAIL APPLN. 3034/2025

¶4

RUPAK CHATERJEE @ ARYAN VED CHATERJEE @ REHAN

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Abhas Mishra, Adv. (DHCLSC) with Ms. Neha Singhal & Ms. Deepika Gawri Tyagi, Advs.

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for the State with WSI Shruti Saini, PS Karol Bagh.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 09.09.2025

¶12

CRL.M.A. 23493/2025 (exemption)

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

This application stands disposed of.

¶15

BAIL APPLN. 3034/2025

¶16

This is an application for the grant of interim bail for a period of 60 days filed on behalf of the petitioner in case FIR no. 416/2020 under Section 376(2)(N)/419 IPC, registered at PS Karol Bagh.

¶17

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is suffering from Right Inguinal Scrotal Hernia and has been advised surgery by the DDU hospital. He states that petitioner is unwilling to get himself operated from

¶18

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/09/2025 at 12:23:26

¶19

DDU hospital as there is no robotic Laparoscopic surgery facility available at DDU hospital and therefore wants to undergo surgery from a reputed private hospital.

¶20

The application has been opposed by the Ld. APP submitting that there is no justification for the grant of interim bail for the purpose of surgery in the present case inasmuch as such treatment is available in government hospital.

¶21

The report received from the Senior Medical Officer of the Jail reveals that petitioner is diagnosed with Right Inguinal Hernia and has been advised surgery by the DDU hospital but petitioner has refused to get himself operated from DDU hospital or any other government hospital and want to get operated in a private hospital. The report further reveals that the general condition of the petitioner is stable.

¶22

There is no reason as to why the petitioner cannot undergo surgery from some other government hospital where laparoscopic treatment is available or even from a private hospital at his own expense while staying in custody.

¶23

There is no justification for the grant of interim bail. The application is, therefore, dismissed.

¶24

However, the petitioner is at liberty to obtain the treatment from the private hospital while staying in custody at his own expense, if so advised by the Doctor.

¶25

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶26

SEPTEMBER 9, 2025/lks/na

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 11/09/2025 at 12:23:26

Rupak Chaterjee @ Aryan Ved Chaterjee @ Rehan v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupak Chaterjee @ Aryan Ved Chaterjee @ Rehan v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jazib Jafri Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Rajshree Anand and Others Vs the State Govt. of NCT of Dlhei and Anr.

Aditya Vikram Singh Sethi Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

Braham Prakash Vs the State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Ms Riza Puri Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sadique Ahmad @Nanhe & Ors. Vs the State of NCT of & Ors.