2023 (6) TMI 1325 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - seeking grant of interim bail - bail sought on medical grounds - whether the petitioner is entitled to interim bail as being sick or infirm in terms of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA? HELD THAT - Health condition of a human being deserves utmost importance and right to health is one of the most significant dimensions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Every person has a right to get himself adequately and effectively treated. The exercise of discretion of the grant of bail is not to be exercised only as a last resort rather freedom is a cherished fundamental right. Hence, in view of the health conditions of the petitioner, the medical records being furnished on behalf of the petitioner and the same being verified by the ED as authentic, the non-denial of the condition of the petitioner which is worse than the co-accused who has been granted regular bail, and on the perusal of all other precedents this Court finds that the petitioner is suffering from life-threatening diseases warranting immediate medical attention and post-operative care. This Court is of the opinion in view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioner's case satisfies the test of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. This Court has also appreciated the other factors as required to be considered while granting bail to an accused. It is evident that there is nothing on record to show that the liberty granted to the petitioner has been misused by him during his previous interim bails and neither has he been found to be an absconder. The petitioner is admitted to interim bail for a period of six weeks on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned, subject to the conditions imposed - application is disposed of.

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to interim bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 45 and 65 of the PMLA.
2. Medical condition of the petitioner.
3. Applicability of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA.
4. Consistency in judicial discretion and parity with co-accused.
5. Compliance with bail conditions and risk assessment.

Summary:

1. Entitlement to Interim Bail:
The petitioner sought interim bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 45 and 65 of the PMLA in relation to ECIR/HIU-II/14/2022 registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The petitioner was involved in a partnership firm "Indo Spirits" and was implicated in a case concerning irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy, 2021-22. The petitioner was arrested on 28th September 2022 and has been on interim bail since 28th February 2023 for medical reasons.

2. Medical Condition of the Petitioner:
The petitioner's counsel highlighted severe health issues, including multiple surgeries, prolapsed intervertebral discs, severe lower back pain, bilateral lower limb radiculopathy, cervical spondylitis, recurrent urinary tract infections, and a recent spinal surgery requiring extensive post-operative care. The petitioner argued that his medical condition necessitated continuous specialized treatment and care, which could not be adequately provided in custody.

3. Applicability of the Proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA:
The court examined whether the petitioner fell under the "sick or infirm" category as per the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. The court noted that the proviso carves out an exception from the stringent twin conditions of bail for persons who are sick or infirm. The court referred to precedents indicating that the proviso should be applied to those whose medical conditions are life-threatening and cannot be treated adequately in jail.

4. Consistency in Judicial Discretion and Parity with Co-Accused:
The petitioner argued that the co-accused, P. Sarathi Chandra Reddy, was granted regular bail on medical grounds, and the same consideration should apply to him. The court acknowledged that parity alone is not a binding criterion but considered the petitioner's severe medical condition, verified medical records, and the unchallenged bail of the co-accused as persuasive factors.

5. Compliance with Bail Conditions and Risk Assessment:
The court found no evidence that the petitioner misused the liberty granted during previous interim bails or posed a flight risk. The petitioner complied with all conditions imposed by the trial court and there were no allegations of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

Conclusion:
The court granted interim bail to the petitioner for six weeks, subject to stringent conditions, including restrictions on movement, maintaining live location sharing, and regular check-ins with the local police. The court emphasized that the decision was based on the petitioner's medical needs and did not reflect on the merits of the case. The petitioner was ordered to surrender by 25th July 2023.

← Previous Next →