2024 (8) TMI 1470 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - Seeking grant of bail on medical grounds - applicability of Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - HELD THAT - The assessment that the applicant requires regular physiotherapy cannot be questioned. However, the prayer for bail on the count that the applicant requires assistance for his daily routine activities cannot be considered, discounting the extensive period for which the applicant has been provided treatment, as an indoor patient, at the Lilavati Hospital and Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals. In the light of the condition of health of the applicant on other parameters, namely, cardiac, nephrology and ophthalmology, the applicant seems to be relatively stable. What the applicant now requires is diabetes management and physiotherapy. Thus, the assessment that the applicant requires assistance for his daily activities cannot be appreciated in isolation. An appropriate direction to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Mumbai, to provide the requisite assistance, whenever necessary, would meet the exigency of the situation. The concern expressed on behalf of the applicant that on account of logistical issues it may not be practicable to take the applicant to Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals for treatment regularly can also be addressed by issuing appropriate directions. The requirement of assistance either in the form of physical aids like wheelchair or walker, or human support, cannot be construed to be such an infirmity as to warrant the release on bail by invoking the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. To put in another words, there is not much qualitative difference in the condition of health of the applicant today and as it obtained when the first application was rejected. On the contrary, an inference may be justifiable that the health condition of the applicant has improved with treatment as an indoor patient for almost four months. It is not required to release the applicant on bail on medical ground. However, it is deemed appropriate to issue certain directions to ensure proper assistance and treatment to the applicant - bail application dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the applicant's medical condition justifies granting bail under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
2. Evaluation of the applicant's health condition and the necessity for hospitalization or continued medical treatment.
3. Consideration of the applicant's right to life and health while being incarcerated.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Medical Condition and Bail under Section 45(1) of PMLA

The applicant sought bail on medical grounds, citing severe health issues, including diabetic neuropathy, ischemic heart disease, and chronic kidney disease. The legal framework under Section 45(1) of the PMLA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that the applicant is not guilty of the offense and will not commit any offense while on bail. However, the proviso allows for bail if the applicant is sick or infirm.

The court emphasized that granting bail on health grounds requires a judicious exercise of discretion. The applicant must demonstrate that their condition is severe enough to justify release. The court referred to precedents, including Kewal Krishan Kumar vs. Enforcement Directorate, which defined infirmity as a disability incapacitating a person from performing daily activities.

Issue 2: Evaluation of Health Condition

The applicant's health was evaluated by a committee of experts at Sir J. J. Group of Hospitals. The committee's report indicated that the applicant's conditions, including diabetic neuropathy and ischemic heart disease, could be managed on an outpatient basis and did not require hospitalization. The applicant's chronic kidney disease was noted as irreversible but manageable with medication and regular follow-ups.

The court considered the committee's findings, which suggested that the applicant's health had not deteriorated significantly since the previous bail application was rejected. The applicant's conditions were stable, and he had received extensive treatment as an indoor patient, including physiotherapy.

Issue 3: Right to Life and Health

The court acknowledged the applicant's right to life and health, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It recognized the state's obligation to provide adequate medical treatment to prisoners. However, the court found that the applicant's need for assistance in daily activities did not constitute a sufficient infirmity to warrant bail. The court directed the prison authorities to provide necessary support, including a wheelchair, walking aid, and an attendant, to assist the applicant in his daily routine.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the applicant's medical condition did not justify granting bail under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. The applicant's health was stable, and his conditions could be managed with outpatient treatment. The court issued directions to ensure that the applicant received appropriate medical care and assistance while incarcerated. The bail application was rejected, with instructions for the applicant to be re-lodged in Central Prison, Mumbai, and provided with necessary medical support.

← Previous Next →