Money laundering bail denied despite medical grounds as condition not life-threatening and adequate jail facilities available

Delhi HC dismissed regular bail application in money laundering case where applicant sought bail on medical grounds. Court held that while prisoners have right to medical treatment, applicant's condition was not life-threatening and adequate medical facilities were available in jail. Medical board confirmed outpatient treatment was sufficient. Court noted applicant was key conspirator in excise policy scam involving Rs. 192 crores proceeds of crime, had not cooperated during investigation, and allegedly destroyed evidence multiple times. Twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA not satisfied for bail grant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of Bail under PMLA: Section 45 and its Exceptions
2. Importance of Right to Medical Treatment of the Prisoners
3. The Medical Condition of Applicant: Examining the AIIMS Report and the Jail Report
4. Right of Accused to Medical Treatment in Custody: Duty of The Court
5. Medical Facilities and Policies in Delhi Prisons
6. Right of Accused to receive Medical Treatment vs. Right of Prosecuting Agency to Investigate Fairly

Summary:

(i) Grant of Bail under PMLA: Section 45 and its Exceptions

The applicant sought bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. read with Sections 45 and 65 of PMLA on medical grounds. Section 45 of PMLA prescribes twin conditions for bail: reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and the accused is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. However, exceptions exist for those under 16, women, sick, or infirm, or if the alleged money laundering is less than one crore rupees. The applicant argued he falls under the "sick" and "infirm" category. The court referenced the case of Kewal Krishan Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate, which interpreted "sick or infirm" as life-threatening conditions requiring treatment unavailable in jail hospitals.

(ii) Importance of Right to Medical Treatment of the Prisoners

The court emphasized the right to health as a human right, even for prisoners, referencing the case of In Re Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, which mandates timely medical care for prisoners, including specialized diagnostic and post-surgery care.

(iii) The Medical Condition of Applicant: Examining the AIIMS Report and the Jail Report

The applicant's medical condition was examined by a Medical Board from AIIMS, which concluded he did not require hospitalization but needed to follow rehabilitation protocols. The court noted the applicant's argument that the report suggested treatment at "home" was misinterpreted, as "home" referred to his current residence in jail. The court found the jail dispensary provided basic medical facilities, and specialized treatments were addressed by allowing visits to VNA Hospital.

(iv) Right of Accused to Medical Treatment in Custody: Duty of The Court

The court reiterated that while prisoners have the right to medical treatment, it must be balanced with the State's right to conduct a fair investigation. The court referenced State v. Jaspal Singh Gill and State of U.P. v. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati, emphasizing that bail on medical grounds should only be granted if the prison cannot provide necessary treatment.

(v) Medical Facilities and Policies in Delhi Prisons

The court reviewed the Jail Hospital Referral Policy, which categorizes referral hospitals for prisoners based on their medical condition, ensuring access to necessary medical care.

(vi) Right of Accused to receive Medical Treatment vs. Right of Prosecuting Agency to Investigate Fairly

The court balanced the applicant's right to healthcare with the State's interest in a fair investigation. The court noted the applicant had received adequate medical care and that the jail authorities complied with previous court orders for his treatment.

Conclusion

The court concluded the applicant was not suffering from a life-threatening condition that required treatment unavailable in jail. The applicant's request for regular bail was denied, but the court directed the jail authorities to ensure continued medical care and follow-up treatments as needed. The judgment emphasized that the observations made should not influence the merits of the ongoing case.

---