2023 (10) TMI 532 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - bail sought on medical grounds - Money Laundering - Scheduled offences - applicability of Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - It is relevant to note that in the case of Gayatri Prasad Prajapati 2020 (10) TMI 1281 - SUPREME COURT the High Court had passed the impugned order without considering the report of SGPGI. The Hon ble Supreme Court observed that SGPGI is a super specialty hospital and it had reported that the accused s glycaemia was better controlled, hypertension was well controlled, pulmonary consultation had been completed and only urology workup was going on and, therefore, the Hon ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the High Court. Moreover, even Section 45 PMLA has a Proviso appended to it which provides that a person who is sick, may be released on bail even by the special court. The applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail keeping in view his medical conditions only, which claim stands fortified by the subsequent reports submitted by the medical board constituted by five expert doctors of SGPGIMS in furtherance of an order passed by this Court. As has already been noted above, this court lacks the requisite expertise to doubt the reports submitted by SGPGI. The subsequent documents relating to medical condition of the applicant annexed with the supplementary affidavit indicate that the applicant continues to be seriously ill. The allegations of a witness being influenced have been emphatically denied on behalf of the applicant. The applicant has been granted anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 119/2023, under sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Hazratganj, District Lucknow, which is the scheduled offence - this court finds no reason to vacate the interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant by means of order dated 30.05.2023. The application for anticipatory bail is allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the anticipatory bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
2. Applicant's medical condition and its impact on the bail decision.
3. Allegations of influencing a witness and non-cooperation with the investigation.
4. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA to anticipatory bail applications.

Summary:

1. Legality of the anticipatory bail application under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA):
The applicant sought anticipatory bail in connection with ECIR/ALSZO/02/2023 under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA. The Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the allegations and the rigors of Section 45 of PMLA. The court referred to multiple judgments, including *Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others Vs. Union of India* and *Directorate of Enforcement Vs. M. Gopal Reddy*, emphasizing that Section 45's stringent conditions apply to anticipatory bail applications under PMLA.

2. Applicant's medical condition and its impact on the bail decision:
The applicant, suffering from severe medical conditions including post-renal transplant complications, diabetes, and polycystic liver disease, presented medical reports from SGPGI, Lucknow. The court had previously granted interim anticipatory bail based on these conditions and requested a medical board's evaluation. The board confirmed the applicant's serious health issues, necessitating close medical observation. The court noted that it lacked the expertise to challenge the medical board's findings and relied on their expert opinion.

3. Allegations of influencing a witness and non-cooperation with the investigation:
The E.D. alleged that the applicant influenced a witness, Vikram Nag, and directed him to avoid investigation. The applicant denied these allegations, stating he was bedridden due to his health and could not have met the witness. The court found the applicant's denial credible, supported by his medical condition and hospital records.

4. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA to anticipatory bail applications:
The court discussed the applicability of Section 45 of PMLA, noting that the restrictions on bail under this section do not apply to constitutional courts. Referring to *Ramji Singh Vs. Directorate of Enforcement*, the court highlighted that the special powers of the High Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. remain unaffected by Section 45. Additionally, the proviso to Section 45 allows bail for sick individuals, further supporting the applicant's case.

Conclusion:
The court found no reason to vacate the interim anticipatory bail granted earlier, considering the applicant's serious medical condition and lack of evidence supporting the E.D.'s allegations of influencing a witness. The application for anticipatory bail was allowed, and the interim order dated 30.05.2023 was made absolute.