TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Temporary Bail for Medical Treatment in PMLA Special Case</h1> <h3>Sachin Joshi Versus Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.</h3> Sachin Joshi Versus Directorate of Enforcement & Anr. - TMI Issues:1. Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.2. Grant of bail on medical grounds under the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PML Act.3. Interference by the High Court with the Sessions Court's bail order.4. Examination by a medical board and its report.5. Entitlement to permanent bail for a sick accused.6. Surgical interventions and treatment requirements for the accused.7. Decision on temporary bail duration and conditions.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, seeking release in a PMLA Special Case. The Sessions Court granted bail to the petitioner on medical grounds, citing the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PML Act.2. The High Court, after examining a medical board report, concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to permanent bail but granted temporary bail for two months to allow the petitioner to undergo necessary medical treatment. The petitioner argued for permanent bail based on his health condition and the need for continuous treatment, including spinal surgery.3. The High Court's decision to interfere with the Sessions Court's bail order was challenged by the petitioner, contending that the High Court overlooked the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PML Act, which allows bail for sick accused without restrictions. The Additional Solicitor General argued that the required surgical interventions were minor, and permanent bail was not warranted.4. Considering the submissions and medical records, the Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's decision to interfere with the Sessions Court's order. However, acknowledging the petitioner's treatment needs, the Supreme Court granted temporary bail for four months, emphasizing that no extension of bail would be entertained and the conditions imposed by the High Court would apply.5. The judgment highlights the importance of balancing medical needs with legal provisions regarding bail, specifically in cases involving the health of the accused. The decision underscores the temporary nature of bail granted for medical treatment purposes and the adherence to conditions set by the High Court for the duration of the bail period.
TaxTMI 