PMLA bail proviso for sickness or infirmity applies only to grave conditions beyond prison medical care.

The proviso to section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act is construed as a narrow bail relaxation for a person who is truly sick or infirm, meaning a condition of grave, persistent severity that is life-endangering or cannot be adequately managed in prison medical facilities. Mere illness, age, or custodial treatment is insufficient. On the medical record discussed, stability and jail-hospital care did not establish sickness, but recurring seizures, behavioural disorder, worsening condition, and the need for an attendant for timely medication supported infirmity within the proviso. Once that threshold was met, the twin conditions under section 45(1) did not apply, though ordinary bail factors remained relevant.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant fell within the proviso to section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 as a person who is "sick or infirm", and consequently whether bail was justified on that ground.

Analysis: The proviso to section 45(1) was construed as a relaxation meant for cases where sickness or infirmity is of such gravity that it is life-endangering or requires specialised treatment unavailable in jail. The interpretation was supported by the legislative objects of the Act, the 2018 amendment context, and the analogous approach adopted for bail under section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Mere illness, age, or treatment in custody was held insufficient; the relevant enquiry was whether the condition was grave, persistent, and not adequately manageable in prison medical facilities. On the medical record, the applicant was found to be stable and capable of treatment in jail hospital so he was not treated as "sick". However, the record also showed recurring seizures, behavioural disorder, worsening condition, and the need for an attendant for timely medication, which established infirmity beyond mere old age. Once the applicant fell within the proviso, the twin conditions under section 45(1) did not apply, though the ordinary bail considerations remained relevant.

Conclusion: The applicant was held to be "infirm" within the proviso to section 45(1) and was entitled to bail.

---