2023 (9) TMI 1450 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - Seeking grant of Interim Bail - bail sought on medical grounds - HELD THAT - There is no doubt in the mind of the Court that every individual has a right to get proper and effective medical treatment. There is also no doubt that an accused has a similar right to proper and effective treatment. However in the present case, the petitioner has been given concession of interim bail on the medical grounds on several occasions. This Court cannot raise a suspicion at the ground of the petitioner s health condition but at the same time, this extension of interim bail from time to time sets a very bad precedent and is prone to be misused. Thus, this Court does not find any ground to further extend the interim bail. The petitioner shall be remained hospitalized in the custody of the Superintendent Jail till the petitioner is discharged from the hospital, which should not exceed two weeks except in case of some medical advice. During this period, the wife, children and parents of the petitioner may meet the petitioner in the hospital as per the rules and the permission of the Superintendent Jail. However, during these meetings, the members of the family of the petitioner shall not be allowed to take phone with them. The petitioner shall also not be allowed to use a phone during this period. The petitioner may be allowed to take home cook meal during the period of hospitalization. Let the medical documents on record be verified from the AIIMS. Medical Superintendent, AIIMS is requested to constitute a medical board and give a definite opinion about the medical condition of the petitioner and also to suggest whether the present disease and all the medical problems taken together or singly, require hospitalization in a particular hospital or can the petitioner be treated in the jail or the referral hospital. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Extension of interim bail on medical grounds.

Summary:
The petitioner sought an extension of interim bail due to medical reasons, specifically related to a knee injury. The petitioner had initially been granted interim bail for six weeks, which was extended for an additional six weeks. The petitioner experienced complications with his knee, requiring surgery. Despite the need for a three to six months recovery period, the petitioner requested a three-month extension of the interim bail. The ED opposed the extension, citing the prolonged nature of the petitioner's bail on medical grounds. The Court acknowledged the right to medical treatment for all individuals, including accused persons, but expressed concerns about setting a precedent for repeated extensions of interim bail. Consequently, the Court decided not to extend the interim bail further. Instead, it ordered the petitioner to remain hospitalized until discharged, with restrictions on phone use and visitation rights. The medical documents were to be verified by AIIMS, and the petitioner was permitted to seek an extension of interim bail based on AIIMS' medical opinion.

This judgment highlights the balance between an accused's right to medical treatment and the potential for misuse of repeated interim bail extensions.