2016 (6) TMI 1148 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - grant of bail on medical grounds seeked under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure read with First proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA 2002 - Held that - As in the case in hand, there is nothing on record to establish that applicant is suffering from such serious ailment which necessitates him to immediately obtain treatment in multi specialty hospital, from specific doctor. It is pertinent to note that apart from the present complaint filed under the provisions of PMLA, 2002, admittedly, chargesheets with reference to offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act are filed against the applicant and it is also informed that investigations in similar other crimes are still in progress. Having considered the facts as aforesaid, thus, find no reason to allow the application. It is, thus, liable to be rejected and stands rejected accordingly, however, it is directed that Jail Authorities shall, as and when required, provide all the necessary medical treatment to applicant in government hospital while in custody.

Issues Involved:
1. Bail Application on Medical Grounds
2. Validity and Accuracy of Medical Reports
3. Applicability of Legal Precedents
4. Gravity of Offence and Public Interest

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Bail Application on Medical Grounds:
The applicant, a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly of Maharashtra, sought bail on medical grounds under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA 2002). The applicant claimed to suffer from multiple ailments including Bronchial Asthma, Hypertension, Diabetes, Sleep Apnea, Coronary issues, and Osteoarthritis. The application was initially rejected by the Special Court, which found the medical documents insufficient to infer any major health problem that couldn't be treated in judicial custody or a government hospital.

2. Validity and Accuracy of Medical Reports:
The applicant's counsel raised multiple doubts about the medical reports, including discrepancies in the date of birth, non-mention of M.R.D. numbers on pathology reports, and the timing of the reports. The court examined these doubts and found that the elevated enzyme levels (TroponinT and CPKMB) were within normal range within 48 hours of treatment. The court also addressed the issue of the date of birth discrepancy and the non-mention of M.R.D. numbers, concluding that these were not substantial enough to question the validity of the medical reports. The court found the explanation regarding the date and time on the investigation flowsheet footer reasonable, attributing it to a system error.

3. Applicability of Legal Precedents:
The applicant's counsel cited the cases of Surjit Singh vs. State of Punjab and Kashinath Mangtoolal Tapuriah vs. Union of India to support the bail application. However, the court distinguished these cases based on their specific facts. In Surjit Singh, the issue was about reimbursement for medical treatment abroad, and in Kashinath Mangtoolal Tapuriah, the applicant was suffering from severe ailments requiring long-term nursing care. The court found that in the present case, there was no evidence of such serious ailments necessitating immediate treatment in a multi-specialty hospital.

4. Gravity of Offence and Public Interest:
The Special Public Prosecutor cited the case of State vs. Jaspal Singh Gill, emphasizing the gravity of the offence under PMLA 2002 and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court noted that apart from the present complaint, chargesheets under the Prevention of Corruption Act were filed against the applicant and investigations in similar crimes were ongoing. The court held that the gravity of the offence and public interest outweighed the applicant's plea for bail on medical grounds.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the medical reports were truthful and did not indicate any serious ailment requiring immediate specialized treatment. Given the gravity of the offences and ongoing investigations, the court found no reason to grant bail. The application was thus rejected, with a direction to jail authorities to provide necessary medical treatment to the applicant in government hospitals as required. The application was disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →