2023 (3) TMI 746 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail - Money laundering - bank fraud - allegations are that Shakti Bhog Foods Limited (SBFL) where the Applicant was one of the directors promoter and guarantor and had availed of various loan facilities from a consortium of banks led by State Bank of India from 2006 onwards and in order to acquire more loan funds from Banks the company resorted to round tripping and money laundering using its various group companies as platforms - role ascribed to the Applicant in the prosecution complaint is that the Applicant was a director guarantor and promoter of SBFL - bail urged with regards to the proviso to section 45(1) PMLA that the Applicant is sick and infirm. Whether the Applicant is sick or infirm in terms of the proviso under section 45(1) PMLA? HELD THAT - A purposive interpretation of the proviso to section 45(1) shows that it has been incorporated as a lenient provision or to afford relaxation to a sick or infirm person as noted in the Statement of Objects and Reasons to PMLA - Proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA is analogous to the proviso to section 437 CrPC. What is that level of sickness or infirmity that brings an Accused within the parameters of sick or infirm as envisaged in the proviso to section 45(1) PMLA? - HELD THAT - When the sickness or infirmity is of such a nature that it is life-threatening and requires medical assistance that cannot be provided in penitentiary hospitals then the accused should be granted bail under the proviso to section 45(1) PMLA - The Hon ble Supreme Court in PAWAN @ TAMATAR VERSUS RAM PRAKASH PANDEY ANR. 2002 (5) TMI 890 - SUPREME COURT have noted that every sickness does not ipso facto entitle an accused to medical bail. In the present case the Applicant is not sick to be granted bail under proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA. The ailments that the Applicant is suffering from are not grave or life threatening that entitle him to bail on medical grounds. Reliance placed upon the opinion of the medical board that has opined that the Applicant is stable and can be treated in Tihar Jail Hospital - granting bail on every sickness will render the proviso to section 45(1) PMLA otiose. The proviso should only be invoked in cases where the sickness suffered by the Applicant is so serious and life endangering that it cannot be treated in jail or the specialized treatment as required cannot be provided from jail hospitals. In the instant case it is evident from the medical board s report that the condition of the Applicant is stable he is not suffering from lifethreatening ailments and can recuperate with the medical facilities available in jail - the Applicant cannot be termed to be sick to fall within the proviso to section 45(1) PMLA. Once the Applicant falls in the exception clause of section 45(1) proviso as in the present case by virtue being infirm the Applicant need not satisfy the twin test of section 45(1) PMLA - In the present case the Applicant has been in custody for over 18 months. Investigation qua the Applicant is complete but no chargesheet has been filed yet. The Applicant was released on interim bail for a period of one month and after expiry of the same he surrendered and there is no allegation of misuse of liberty by him while on bail. The Applicant is entitled to grant of bail subject to conditions imposed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application under section 45(1) of the PMLA.
2. Determination of whether the applicant is "sick or infirm" under the proviso to section 45(1) PMLA.
3. Analysis of the applicant's medical condition and its impact on the bail decision.

Issue-wise Comprehensive Details:

1. Bail Application under Section 45(1) of the PMLA:
The applicant sought bail under section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), citing health grounds. The applicant, aged 70, has a chronic medical history including bariatric surgery, varicose veins, gall bladder stones, seizure and behavioral disorders, and hypertension.

2. Determination of Whether the Applicant is "Sick or Infirm":
The court considered whether the applicant qualifies as "sick or infirm" under the proviso to section 45(1) PMLA. The applicant's counsel argued that the applicant's numerous ailments and old age make him eligible for bail under this proviso. The counsel referenced various judgments to support the argument that the applicant's medical condition warrants bail, emphasizing that the applicant's right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to live with dignity and good health.

3. Analysis of the Applicant's Medical Condition and Its Impact on the Bail Decision:
The court examined medical reports and the opinion of a medical board, which concluded that the applicant's conditions, while serious, were stable and manageable within the jail's medical facilities. The court noted that the proviso to section 45(1) PMLA is intended to provide leniency for those who are genuinely "sick or infirm." However, the court emphasized that not every ailment qualifies an individual for bail; the condition must be life-threatening and unmanageable within the jail's medical facilities.

The court found that the applicant's conditions, although serious, were not life-threatening and could be treated within the jail. Therefore, the applicant did not meet the criteria for being "sick" under the proviso to section 45(1) PMLA. However, considering the applicant's advanced age, frequent medical emergencies, and the need for constant medical attention, the court determined that the applicant qualifies as "infirm."

Conclusion:
The court granted bail to the applicant, recognizing his infirmity due to advanced age and multiple medical conditions requiring constant medical attention. The bail was granted with specific conditions to ensure the applicant's compliance and presence during the trial proceedings.