2024 (5) TMI 420 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail on medical grounds - money laundering - Petitioner's severe health condition (duodenal cancer) and his wife s terminal illness, exacerbating his mental distress - invocation of first proviso to Section 45 (1) of PMLA - HELD THAT - In the light of the medical record and opinions, it would be audacious to hold that the applicant is not sick. The applicant is suffering from cancer. Given the situation in life of the applicant, including his age and other ailments that he is suffering from, as well as the critical condition of the applicant s wife Anita, the applicant has not opted for the preferred treatment, which is also fraught with risk. The applicant claims to be 72 years of age. Advanced age brings in its trail associated ailments and infirmities. The physical ailments, in the instant case, seem to have been compounded by the critical condition of the applicant s wife. The matter cannot be looked at from the perspective as to whether the applicant is getting adequate treatment at the hospital. Undoubtedly, the applicant is getting the treatment at the hospital of his choice. The medical opinions/reports do not indicate that the applicant requires further specialised treatment at even more specialised centre/hospital. However, to evaluate the prayer for bail on the said consideration alone, would be taking a very constricted view of the matter. There is a qualitative difference between the treatment which a person gets as an under trial prisoner and as a citizen under no restraint. The upshot of aforesaid consideration is that the peculiar facts of the case the age of the applicant, the disease he is suffering from, the treatment recommended for the said disease, other ailments the applicant is suffering from and the situation in life brought about by the life threatening disease the wife of the applicant is suffering from, cumulatively justify exercise of discretion vested in the Court under the proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA. The applicant can be released on bail for a limited period to avail the treatment for the cancer he is suffering from and attend to his wife, who is also suffering from cancer of an advanced grade. Application allowed in part.

Issues Involved:
1. Bail application on medical grounds u/s 45 (1) of PMLA.
2. Consideration of applicant's and spouse's medical conditions.
3. Evaluation of legal provisions and judicial precedents on bail for sick or infirm individuals.

Summary:

1. Bail Application on Medical Grounds u/s 45 (1) of PMLA:
The applicant, arraigned in Special Case No. 1728 of 2023 for offences under Section 4 of PMLA, sought bail on medical grounds, invoking the first proviso to Section 45 (1) of PMLA. The applicant and his wife suffer from terminal cancer, and the applicant's medical condition necessitates bail.

2. Consideration of Applicant's and Spouse's Medical Conditions:
The applicant argued that his detention violates Article 21 of the Constitution due to his and his wife's critical health conditions. The applicant is critically ill with duodenal cancer and requires complex treatment, while his wife suffers from severe cancer, exacerbating his mental condition. Medical reports and expert opinions were presented to highlight the severity of their conditions.

3. Evaluation of Legal Provisions and Judicial Precedents:
The court examined the proviso to Section 45 (1) of PMLA, which allows bail for individuals who are sick or infirm. The proviso aims to mollify the stringent conditions for granting bail under PMLA. The court noted that discretion must be exercised judiciously, considering whether the applicant falls within the exceptional categories and the totality of circumstances.

The court referenced several judicial decisions, including:
- Kewal Krishnan Kumar v/s Enforcement Directorate: Highlighted that a person need not be sick but can be infirm to seek bail under the proviso.
- Vijay Agrawal Through Parokar v/s Directorate of Enforcement: Emphasized the paramount importance of health conditions in granting bail.
- Devki Nandan Garg v/s Directorate of Enforcement: Stated that individuals falling under the proviso need not satisfy the twin conditions under Section 45 (1).
- Saumya Chaurasia v/s Directorate of Enforcement: Asserted that the grant of bail is discretionary and should be exercised prudently.
- State of U.P. v/s Gayatri Prasad Prajapati: Discussed the adequacy of medical treatment in jail as a consideration for bail.
- Pawan @ Tamatar v/s Ram Prakash Pandey: Addressed the need for proper medical treatment from jail authorities.

Court's Decision:
The court concluded that the applicant's age, medical condition, and the critical health of his wife justify the exercise of discretion under the proviso to Section 45 (1) of PMLA. The applicant was granted bail for two months with specific conditions, including furnishing a P.R. bond, surrendering his passport, and not tampering with evidence or contacting co-accused.

Order:
1. The applicant is released on bail for two months on furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.1 Lakh and sureties.
2. The applicant must remain within the jurisdiction of the PMLA Court, Greater Mumbai, and surrender his passport.
3. The applicant must provide contact details and remain reachable to the IO.
4. The applicant must not tamper with evidence, give threats, or engage in similar activities.
5. The applicant must not contact co-accused or individuals involved in similar activities.
6. Violation of any conditions will result in the cancellation of bail.
7. The applicant must file an undertaking to abide by these conditions within one week.
8. The observations in the order are limited to the bail application and do not affect the merits of the case.

Additional Order:
The applicant is permitted to remain an indoor patient at Sir H.N. Reliance Hospital until May 10, 2024, or until sureties are furnished, whichever is earlier.

Application disposed.

← Previous Next →