Delhi High Court: In a bail application filed under Section 25 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) read with Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’), Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.*, opined that undoubtedly, the treatment which the applicant required at this stage, could not be provided to him in the jail dispensary since the prisons were non-equipped to deal with such situations, as they lacked appropriate machines and equipment required to carry out such procedures. Further, life threatening nature of coronary artery disease or cardiac related issues could not be equated with other category of illnesses, as such medical conditions had the potential to precipitate life-threatening events at any moment, and thus, they stood unparalleled in their urgency and criticality. Therefore, the Court opined that the applicant’s health condition was of such nature that fell within the category of ‘sick’ under Section 45 of PMLA and he must be given an opportunity to get himself treated in the hospital of his choice. Thus, the Court granted interim bail to the applicant for a period of three months.
Background
In this case, the applicant was arrested on 09-10-2023 and sought release on interim bail on medical grounds. It was stated that a bare perusal of the applicant’s medical reports made it apparent that the applicant had a chronic history of high triglycerides, cholesterol and related issues concerning his heart. Further, it was stated that even prior to his arrest in October 2023, he was consulting his doctors for treatments/procedures to mitigate his susceptibility to a stroke, heart attack and acute inflammation of the pancreas. Since, the applicant’s arrest, he had been taken to jail dispensary several times complaining shortness of breath, chest pains, etc., which made it apparent that his medical issues were severe.
Further, the applicant had several medical emergencies in jail and the jail authorities were unable to properly diagnose or treat the conditions and had stated that the applicant required external cardiology, gastroenterology, and other specialist reviews and treatment, but such reviews were not being done in time. The applicant submitted that his medical condition had deteriorated severely while in judicial custody, and it was his fundamental right to be given adequate and effective treatment by the doctors of his choosing. Therefore, being a sick person, the applicant was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45 of PMLA.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that Section 45 of the PMLA prescribed mandatory twin conditions to be met before bail could be granted to an accused, and the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA provided exceptions to the general rule, wherein one of the exceptions where Special Courts could exercise their discretion outside the satisfaction of twin conditions was, when the accused was sick or infirm.
The Court took note of the applicant’s medical status report and opined that the applicant had been on medications related to high cholesterol levels and coronary artery disease for last few years and his condition had worsened since the time he had been in judicial custody. Further, the applicant’s dosage of the drug was doubled by the doctor, and he was also prescribed another medicine, often used as an emergency drug in cases of severe chest pain/angina/heart attacks. The Court noted that the latest medical reports also revealed that the applicant was suffering from several orthopaedic and neurological issues, and had been advised MRIs, which was scheduled for 25-04-2025, that is after a period of about one year and three months. Further, the ultrasonography, which was advised to be conducted on 19-12-2023, had not been conducted till date and due to the same, the applicant was suffering from decreased flow and pain during urination.
The Court opined that there was no doubt that the treatment which the applicant required at this stage, could not be provided to him in the jail dispensary since the prisons were non-equipped to deal with such situations, as they lacked appropriate machines and equipment required to carry out such procedures. Further, life threatening nature of coronary artery disease or cardiac related issues could not be equated with other category of illnesses, as such medical conditions had the potential to precipitate life-threatening events at any moment, and thus, they stood unparalleled in their urgency and criticality.
Therefore, the Court opined that the applicant’s health condition was of such nature that fell within the category of ‘sick’ under Section 45 of PMLA and he must be given an opportunity to get himself treated in the hospital of his choice. The Court further opined that “the delicate balance between life and death in cardiac emergencies underscores the importance for prioritization and specialized care required in such cases, for mitigating the profound risks posed by these medical conditions. Each passing moment in the face of cardiac distress is fraught with the peril of irreversible harm, and in case of any eventuality that may occur in applicant not getting proper and specialised treatment, this Court will have to bear the weight of regret.”
Thus, the Court granted interim bail to the applicant for three months on the condition that he should furnish a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of the like amount, subject to satisfaction of the Trial Court//Successor Court/Link Court/Duty Judge. The Court stated that the applicant should share his mobile number with the concerned Investigating Officer, on which he could be contacted, and the shared mobile number should always be kept operational. Further, the applicant should also inform the details of his residential address/permanent address to the investigating officer and the Trial Court, and in case of change in residential address or contact details, the applicant should immediately inform the same to the Trial Court and the Investigating officer.
The Court stated that the applicant would surrender his passport before the Trial Court and should not leave the country during the period of interim bail. Further, the applicant should not directly or indirectly, make any attempt to influence the witnesses in the present case, or tamper with the evidence in any manner, and on expiry of the period of interim bail, the applicant should immediately surrender before the Court concerned.
The matter would next be listed on 24-05-2024.
[Hari Om Rai v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1025, decided on 16-02-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Vikas Pahwa, Senior Advocate with Abhay Raj Varma, Arjun Rekhi, P. Rathi, Namisha and Sanskriti S. Gupta, Advocates;
For the Respondent: S.V. Raju, ASG with Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, Manish Jain, Special Counsel, Samrat Goswami, Vivek Gurnani, Kartik Sabharwal and Ishan Baisla, Advocates.
