ORDER To support the petitioner's claim for modification of the order passed by this Court on 24.10.2016, declining bail to the petitioner on medical grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to a communication dated 29.06.2016. Paragraph 6 thereof, to which our attention was drawn, is extracted hereunder:— “It is correct that Shri Asha Ram cannot perform his daily routine matters and cannot walk without the assistance of other inmate persons/tools. On the basis of prison medical records (as per Prison doctor and Ayurvedic doctor Sh. Arun Tyagi) many a times Shri Asha Ram suffers with stabbing pain in head and many times the urine and stool is passed in his clothes.” (emphasis is ours) 2. In addition to the above, learned counsel for the petitioner, drew our attention to the report dated 11.07.2016, submitted by the Superintendent, Central Prison, Jodhpur, based on a hospital prescription, wherein the petitioner had complained of urine and stool incontinence. Learned counsel for the petitioner was at pains to point out, that the afore-stated complaint should be understood to mean, that the petitioner had no control either on urination or in passing stools. 3. In order to supplement the claim of the petitioner, with reference to his having no control on urination, learned counsel also drew our attention to a report dated 21.09.2016, furnished by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, in furtherance of, and in compliance with, orders passed by this Court on 11.08.2016 and 30.08.2016. An extract of the above report, to the extent the same is relevant, is being reproduced hereunder:— “The petitioner refused to undergo the following investigations: 1. Stress Thallium (Dobutamine) 2. MRI Prostate 3. Carotid Doppler On the basis of clinical and results of investigations received by medical board, he was diagnosed to have the following conditions: 1. Trigeminal Neuralgia 2. Cervical and lumbar spondylosis, Osteoarthritis knees 3. Primary Hypothyroidism 4. Prostatomegaly 5. Carpel Tunnel Syndrome 6. Coronary Artery disease (functional severity not established, as explained below) 7. Low vitamin D3 level (subclinical) Radiological and blood investigation reports are enclosed in original. Findings from the extent of completed evaluation reveal the petitioner's medical condition as 'Stable'. However, coronary, cartoid and prostate evaluation remained incomplete as the petitioner refused to undergo the requisite tests. Carpel Tunnel Syndrome 6. Coronary Artery disease (functional severity not established, as explained below) 7. Low vitamin D3 level (subclinical) Radiological and blood investigation reports are enclosed in original. Findings from the extent of completed evaluation reveal the petitioner's medical condition as 'Stable'. However, coronary, cartoid and prostate evaluation remained incomplete as the petitioner refused to undergo the requisite tests. (emphasis is ours) Referring to the aforesaid report, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner, that the petitioner was pointedly diagnosed, as having a condition of 'prostatomegaly'. It was submitted, that the aforesaid condition, is relatable to the prostate gland, wherein there is no control on urination. 4. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner (seeking modification of this Court's order dated 24.10.2016), it is essential to extract the relevant part of the aforesaid order. The same is accordingly reproduced below:— “In this petition the petitioner is seeking interim bail on the ground that he is suffering from various ailments which need immediate medical attention. Having regard to these averments in the special leave petition, the case of the petitioner was referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi for medical examination. He was medically examined and a report dated 19.08.2016 is submitted by the AIIMS, New Delhi. As per the said report, a team of seven doctors was constituted which co-opted five doctors of various disciplines. As many as 29 tests were conducted, particulars whereof are given in the report. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Overall, the report/finding of the Board is that the medical condition of the petitioner is 'stable'. Though, the petitioner has filed objections to the said report wherein it is submitted that because of certain ailments which are established in the report of the AIIMS, New Delhi as well, the petitioner, who is 79 years of age, needs immediate medical attention and some of these ailments if not taken care of medically, will lead to further complications. Mr. Mehta, learned ASG also does not dispute that medical treatment is needed in respect of the diseases with which the petitioner is suffering. However, he has given the suggestion that such treatment of high quality can be provided at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Jodhpur itself. Mr. Mehta, learned ASG also does not dispute that medical treatment is needed in respect of the diseases with which the petitioner is suffering. However, he has given the suggestion that such treatment of high quality can be provided at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Jodhpur itself. To another request of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner wants Ayurvedic treatment, it is also responded by Mr. Mehta that there is a State Ayurvedic Hospital in Jodhpur namely Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Jodhpur itself and State can ensure that the petitioner shall be treated there if he wants so. We find the suggestion of Mr. Mehta to be quite reasonable and acceptable. Thus, subject to the consent of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be provided full medical facilities at AIIMS, Jodhpur and/or Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Jodhpur while in judicial custody. List on 21.11.2016.” (emphasis is ours) 5. It was submitted, that the instant application for modification, had been filed by the petitioner, in spite of the offer made at the behest of the learned counsel representing the State of Rajasthan, that adequate treatment would be available to the petitioner, at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jodhpur, and/or the State Ayurvedic Hospital in Jodhpur. It was pointed out during the course of hearing, that both the aforesaid hospitals, where the petitioner was relegated for treatment, do not have the facilities, for extending specialized treatment, for the ailments suffered by the petitioner. This position has expressly been depicted by the petitioner, in his application for modification. The manner in which the submission has been canvassed, emerges from the averments contained in paragraphs 2 to 4 of the said application, which are reproduced below:— “2. The petitioner/Applicant is constrained to move this Hon'ble Court for a partial modification of the Order dated 24.10.2016 inasmuch as instead of the State Ayurvedic Hospital in Jodhpur and AIIMS Jodhpur, the petitioner is urging this Hon'ble Court that the treatment may be given at AIIMS, Delhi and in Ayurvedic Hospital situated at Delhi. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 24.10.2016, the Petitioner/Applicant sent his authorized representative to AIIMS Jodhpur and it was found that for the diseases suffered by him, AIIMS Jodhpur does not have the necessary facilities. Besides, it has also been confirmed that there is no Inpatient Department at AIIMS, Jodhpur. 3. Pursuant to the order dated 24.10.2016, the Petitioner/Applicant sent his authorized representative to AIIMS Jodhpur and it was found that for the diseases suffered by him, AIIMS Jodhpur does not have the necessary facilities. Besides, it has also been confirmed that there is no Inpatient Department at AIIMS, Jodhpur. In view of the report of the Medical Board of AIIMS, the following specialties are essential for treatment of the Petitioner. i. Neurology ii. Urology iii. Endocrinology iv. Cardiology v. Rheumatology vi. Geriatic Medicine; etc. None of the above facilities are available in AIIMS Jodhpur. The screenshort taken from the website of AIIMS Jodhpur shows that none of the above specialized Departments are available in AIIMS, Jodhpur. Copy of the screenshot taken from the website of AIIMS Jodhpur on 25.10.2016 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure A-1(pg 12-13). 4. Even as far as the State Ayurvedic Hoispital is concerned, the facilities at Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Jodhpur, are extremely basic. As a matter of fact, the Jodhpur Sessions Court vide its order dated 03.12.2013 passed an order to constitute a medical board under the supervision of Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Ayurveda University, Jodhpur. A medical board of three Ayurvedic consultants was constituted by Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Ayurveda University headed by Dr. Arun Tyagi who was the Head of Department of Medicine at the University at that time. From 18.12.2013 to 09.07.2014 he was provided multiple sittings of IPD, day care and OPD based treatments under supervision of Dr. Arun Tyagi at Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Ayurveda University Hospital, Jodhpur with no satisfactory improvement. Further Dr. Arun Tyagi was allowed to treat the petitioner in Jail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20.01.2015 in SLP(Crl.) No. 3852 of 2014. The said Dr. Tyagi, as far back as on 07.10.2015, had reported to the Jail Authorities that the Ayurvedic facilities at the Hospital are not adequate and that he had recommended specialized treatment at Kerala Hospitals. True and typed copy of the report of Dr. Arun Tyagi dated 07.10.2015 submitted to the Jail Authorities is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure A-2 (pg 14-17).” Based on the aforesaid suggestions at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was prayed, that the petitioner be granted bail, on account of the medical condition suffered by him. 6. Arun Tyagi dated 07.10.2015 submitted to the Jail Authorities is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure A-2 (pg 14-17).” Based on the aforesaid suggestions at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was prayed, that the petitioner be granted bail, on account of the medical condition suffered by him. 6. The instant application for modification of this Court's order, dated 24.10.2016, has vehemently been opposed by the learned Additional Solicitor General, representing the State of Rajasthan. It was contended on behalf of the respondent – State of Rajasthan, that the petitioner does not suffer from any serious medical complication. Relying on the medical report of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, extracted hereinabove, it was submitted, that the findings of the medical board, comprising of eight senior doctors of the hospital reveal, that the petitioner's medical condition was stable. It is also pointed out, that the report expressly indicates, that the 'coronary, carotid and prostate evaluation of the petitioner depicted in the report cannot be relied upon, in view of the fact, that evaluation on those medical conditions remained incomplete because the petitioner refused to undergo the requisite tests. From the extract, recorded hereinabove, it was submitted, that the petitioner without any justification, declined to undergo the 'MRI Prostate' examination, which would have clearly disclosed the actual condition of the petitioner, with reference to his prostate evaluation. 7. In spite of the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was submitted at the behest of the State of Rajasthan, that the petitioner has been extended treatment at the Mahatama Gandhi Medical College and Hospital at Jodhpur itself, ever since 2013. It was submitted, that the treatment at the said hospital was of the highest standard available, and that persons holding highest posts at Jodhpur, get medical treatment, at the said hospital. It is submitted, that not only the hospital specializes, in the field of Urology and Kidney Transplant, it also has all facilities to deal with the condition of the petitioner. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties. 9. The issue that boils down in respect of the medical condition of the petitioner is that, he has difficulty in urination, emerging out of a condition described as prostatomegaly. 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration, to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the rival parties. 9. The issue that boils down in respect of the medical condition of the petitioner is that, he has difficulty in urination, emerging out of a condition described as prostatomegaly. We are of the view, that the present condition, is not such a serious condition, as would entail the transfer of the petitioner from one jail to another, or to require him to be subjected to any kind of specialized treatment, at some different station. The medical condition of the petitioner has been described as stable, and as such, there is no question of extending him the concession of bail on medical grounds. 10. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no justification, to interfere with, or modify the order passed by this Court, on 24.10.2016. 11. The instant petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly hereby dismissed.