2022 (4) TMI 775 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of regular bail - bail is sought on medical grounds - stand of Revenue is that there is a possibility that the petitioner may flee from the country, as he has been granted the permission to travel abroad - HELD THAT - After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the medical record of the petitioner, which is based on a report of Medical Board comprising of seven doctors, constituted by Civil Surgeon, Ambala, it is found that case of the petitioner would be covered under proviso to Section 45(i) of PMLA as he is a sick person requiring urgent medical treatment, especially in view of the fact that while in custody for a period of about 03 months, he was repeatedly advised medical care, as noticed in earlier part of this order. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of regular bail under PMLA.
2. Health condition of the petitioner.
3. Risk of fleeing from justice.
4. Compliance with Section 45 of PMLA.
5. Status of FIRs and closure reports.
6. Allegations of cheating and delay in project completion.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Grant of regular bail under PMLA:
The petitioner sought regular bail in PMLA Case No.COMA/01/2022 under Sections 3 & 4 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, arising from FIR No.38 dated 11.02.2020. The court initially granted interim bail on 24.02.2022 based on the petitioner’s health condition and extended it subsequently. The petitioner's counsel argued for regular bail citing his health and compliance with bail conditions, while the Additional Solicitor General opposed it, citing risks of fleeing and tampering with evidence.

2. Health condition of the petitioner:
The petitioner’s health was a significant factor in the court's decision. Medical reports detailed multiple ailments including anxiety, hypertension, and back issues, requiring specialized treatment. The court noted the petitioner’s continuous need for medical attention and deemed his condition as fitting the proviso to Section 45(i) of PMLA, which allows bail for sick or infirm individuals.

3. Risk of fleeing from justice:
The Additional Solicitor General argued that the petitioner posed a flight risk, evidenced by a previous attempt to travel abroad despite a lookout notice. However, the petitioner’s counsel countered that his passport was seized, reducing the risk of fleeing. The court considered these arguments but prioritized the petitioner’s health needs.

4. Compliance with Section 45 of PMLA:
The court discussed the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, which generally restrict bail unless specific criteria are met. The petitioner’s counsel argued that his health condition should allow for bail under the proviso to Section 45(i). The court agreed, noting the petitioner’s severe and ongoing medical issues.

5. Status of FIRs and closure reports:
The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that many FIRs related to the case had been closed or were in the process of settlement. The ED’s complaint acknowledged some FIRs had closure reports filed. The court considered this in its decision, noting the reduced severity of pending charges.

6. Allegations of cheating and delay in project completion:
Intervenors argued that the petitioner was involved in cheating and delays in project completion, impacting numerous victims. The petitioner’s counsel responded that settlements were being processed, and the petitioner’s health should take precedence. The court balanced these concerns with the medical evidence provided.

Judgment:
After reviewing the medical records and arguments, the court found the petitioner’s case covered under the proviso to Section 45(i) of PMLA due to his health. The interim bail granted on 24.02.2022 was made absolute, allowing the petitioner to continue his treatment while adhering to bail conditions.