The Delhi High Court has granted custody bail for 30 days to an alleged ISIS operative to undergo surgery for an umbilical hernia at a private hospital of his choice in Delhi-NCR. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 868]

A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan, however, declined Farhan Ansar Suse's request to travel to Bombay for treatment, citing the alleged network he was stated to have in Padgha and neighbouring areas of Maharashtra.

The Court was hearing Suse's appeal against an order passed by Special NIA Court on August 01 rejecting his application for interim bail on medical grounds.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has invoked Sections 120B and 387 of the IPC and Sections 13, 18, 18A, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against Suse. The chargesheet was filed in March, 2024, followed by a supplementary chargesheet in June, 2024.

According to the NIA, it has been alleged that Suse was part of a conspiracy involving deceased accused Saquib Nachan, who was allegedly operating for ISIS in India.

The agency has alleged that an extortion network was being run to raise funds for ISIS, that Suse circulated messages on behalf of the organisation and that he had taken an oath of allegiance to ISIS.

It has also been alleged that Suse collected large amounts of cash from businessmen in the Padgha area of Maharashtra for supporting ISIS.

The allegations in the supplementary charge-sheet also states that members of the group threatened businessmen and allegedly extorted money in the name of ISIS. The trial is presently at the stage of arguments on charge.

Suse sought interim bail on medical grounds, stating that he was suffering from umbilical hernia, bronchial asthma and Type-II diabetes. He was examined at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, which suggested him to undergo surgery.

Suse's counsel submitted that the alleged connection with ISIS was yet to be established at trial and that Suse had already undergone around two years and nine months of incarceration.

It was also submitted that more than 500 witnesses were to be examined and that he should be permitted to travel to Bombay to meet his family and undergo treatment at a private hospital.

The NIA opposed the plea submitting that Suse was an active member of ISIS in India and one of the chief conspirators associated with co accused Saqib Nachan. The agency also submitted that Suse was already receiving proper medical treatment in Delhi.

While granting custody bail to Suse, the Court clarified that, at this stage, it was concerned only with the question of interim bail on account of Suse's medical condition.

“The admitted position is that the Appellant is required to undergo surgery for an umbilical hernia. He has been receiving treatment at DDU Hospital,” the Court observed, adding that in any case, Suse cannot be prevented from undergoing treatment at a private hospital at his own expense.

“The reasons for the same need not be gone into by this Court, as the Appellant, being medically unwell, cannot be prevented from undergoing treatment at a private hospital at his own expense,” the Bench said.

However, the Court did not permit him to undergo treatment in Bombay, observing that such a request was not feasible at this stage in view of the alleged network in Maharashtra.

“The Court, at this stage, is only inclined to permit the Appellant to undergo treatment at any private hospital of his choice in Delhi/NCR, while under custody,” it ordered.

The Bench granted Suse custody bail for 30 days to undergo medical treatment at a private hospital of his choice in Delhi-NCR.

It directed that, after communicating his choice of hospital to the concerned jail superintendent, Suse would be permitted to be admitted there while remaining under custody, with the expenses to be borne by him.

The Court further directed that if he was declared medically fit after the operation before the expiry of 30 days, he would be shifted back to jail and that any extension would depend upon medical advice.

“The Appellant can be accompanied by any two persons from his immediate family viz., his spouse or any of his children, during the time when he is admitted into the private hospital. However, the Appellant shall not indulge in any communication or meetings with any other relatives, friends, acquaintances over mobile or otherwise. In addition, he shall not communicate with any persons, directly or indirectly, named in the chargesheet,” the Court said.

Title: FARHAN ANSAR SUSE (IN JC) v. NIA

2026 LiveLaw (Del) 868

Click here to read order