Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Farhan Ansar Suse vs. National Investigation Agency & Ors.

Criminal Appeal · 2026:DHC:7998-DBDecided 17 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
CRL.A. 777/2026CNR: DLHC010374002026
Justice Prathiba M. Singh · Justice Vikas Mahajan

Background

The appellant, in judicial custody and charge-sheeted by the National Investigation Agency for alleged links to an ISIS-related conspiracy involving extortion and recruitment activity in Maharashtra, sought interim bail because he needed surgery for an umbilical hernia along with treatment for asthma and diabetes. A special NIA court had rejected his interim bail application, noting he was already receiving treatment at a government hospital (DDU Hospital) in Delhi. He asked the High Court to instead let him undergo private treatment in Mumbai, near his family.

Decision Breakdown

The Court accepted that a medically unwell undertrial cannot be barred from seeking treatment at a private hospital of his choice at his own expense, and granted him custody bail for 30 days to be admitted at a private hospital in the Delhi/NCR region while remaining formally in custody. However, given the serious nature of the allegations and his alleged network in Maharashtra, the Court refused to allow him to travel to Mumbai for treatment, restricting the arrangement to Delhi/NCR, limiting visitors to two immediate family members, and barring any contact with persons named in the chargesheet.

Lesson Learnt

Courts will accommodate a genuine medical need even for a serious under-trial prisoner by allowing private treatment in custody, but they will carefully calibrate the location and conditions of any such release to prevent it from being misused to reconnect with an alleged criminal network.

Farhan Ansar Suse vs. National Investigation Agency & Ors. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware