Medical bail application deferred pending expert evaluation of petitioner's heart condition and spine issues under PMLA Section 45(1)

The Delhi HC considered a bail application on medical and humanitarian grounds for a 3-month period. The court recognized that Article 21 protects life and personal liberty, including the right to health for undertrial prisoners and convicts. While acknowledging the state's obligation to provide adequate medical treatment to all jail inmates, the court noted that discretionary power to grant medical bail under PMLA Section 45(1) must be exercised judiciously. Given the petitioner's documented heart condition and spine issues, but lacking expert medical opinion, the court constituted a medical board to evaluate the petitioner's condition rather than making its own assessment of medical records.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Petition for regular bail.
2. Application for interim bail on medical and humanitarian grounds.

Summary of Judgment:

1. Petition for Regular Bail:
The petitioner, through his wife/pairokar, sought regular bail in connection with ECIR No. DLZO-I/43/2021. The case is pending before the Court of Ld. Special Judge (PC Act CBI-23), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi.

2. Application for Interim Bail on Medical and Humanitarian Grounds:
The petitioner's wife filed an affidavit dated 22.05.2023 seeking interim bail for three months on medical and humanitarian grounds due to the petitioner's deteriorating health condition. The petitioner, aged 57, suffers from multiple ailments including hypertension, depression, anxiety, obstructive sleep apnea, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and damaged mitral valve prolapse. The affidavit detailed the petitioner's medical history and the lack of adequate treatment in jail.

Medical Report and Court's Consideration:
The Court requisitioned a medical report from the concerned jail authority, which was received on 26.05.2023. The report confirmed the petitioner's ailments and detailed the medical attention he had received, including referrals to various hospitals for further treatment.

Arguments by Petitioner's Counsel:
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner's health condition is precarious and requires urgent diagnostic and possibly surgical intervention, which the jail authorities have failed to provide. The counsel cited various judgments to support the plea for interim bail on medical grounds, emphasizing the petitioner's right to adequate and effective medical treatment under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Arguments by Respondent's Counsel:
The learned Special Counsel for the Enforcement Directorate contended that the petitioner's ailments are not serious and can be managed in jail. He argued that interim bail on medical grounds should only be granted when the jail authorities cannot provide the requisite medical facilities. He cited several judgments to support the argument that the discretion to grant bail on medical grounds should be exercised sparingly.

Court's Observations and Directions:
The Court acknowledged the petitioner's right to health as an important facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. It noted that the petitioner had been taken to various hospitals multiple times, but the scheduled diagnostic procedures were significantly delayed, indicating that the Government Hospitals are overburdened.

The Court found it necessary to obtain an expert opinion on the urgency of the petitioner's medical needs and whether specialized treatment is required that cannot be provided in jail. Therefore, the Court directed the constitution of a Medical Board at AIIMS to evaluate the petitioner's medical condition and submit a report by 10.06.2023. The report should address the urgency of the required diagnostic procedures, the risk posed by delays, and whether the petitioner's ailments necessitate specialized treatment and care not available in jail.

The case was listed for further hearing on 12.06.2023.

---