Bombay High Court: The Bench of Prakash D. Naik, J. cancelled the bail granted to actor and businessman, Sachin Joshi in slum rehabilitation scam. The Bench held,

“The Special Court had granted permanent bail on medical grounds. However, on the basis of materials on record, no case for granting permanent bail was made out.”

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) had assailed the order of PMLA Court whereby the Special Court had granted permanent bail to the respondent on medical grounds. Alleging the order to be perverse, the ED contended that the Special Judge ought not to have granted bail to the respondent.

Reportedly, the respondent, Sachin Joshi had helped the promoters of Omkar Group to divert Rs. 87-crore in Slum Rehabilitation Authority case.

Noticeably, the said grant of bail was kept in abeyance by the order of High Court and directions were issued to the J. J. Hospital to constitute a medical board comprising of Neurologist, Endocrinologist and general physician to assess medical condition of the respondent. However, due to non-availability of expert and experienced endocrinologist at J. J. Hospital, the endocrinology examination of the patient could not be done. Later on, as the respondent was tested Covid positive, he had been shifted to isolation ward and the directions of performing endocrinology or CT scan could not be complied. The above report submitted by J. J. Hospital revealed that the respondent was presented with anxiety episodes, abdominal pain, loose stools and rectal bleeding. History referred as bronchial asthma.

In the light of factual analysis as stated above, the Bench observed that, the respondent could have been granted temporary bail to undergo tests and instant treatment if required. However, the Special Court had granted him permanent bail on medical grounds. The Bench opined that on the basis of material on record, no case for granting permanent bail was made out.

Hence, the bail order of Special Court was modified and the respondent was granted temporary bail for a period of two months with liberty to seek treatment in private hospital. The respondent was directed to deposit personal bond of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Only) with one or more solvent sureties. Further, the Bench directed the respondent to deposit his passport to ED and report before it (ED) once a fortnight.

[Directorate Of Enforcement v. Sachin Joshi, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 686, decided on 05-05-2021]

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together

Appearance before the Court by:

For the Applicant: SPP Hiten Shyamrao Venegaokar

For the State: APP Anamika Malhotra
For the Respondent: Sr. Adv. Aabad Ponda, Adv. Sujay Kantawalla, Adv. Subhash Jadhav, Adv. Omprakash Parihar, Adv. Neha prashant, Adv. Amit Patil and i/b. Parinam Law Associates

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.