Sick-or-infirm bail under PMLA is discretionary; custody continued where medical care was available and investigation risk remained.

The proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act permits bail to a sick or infirm person, but the exception is discretionary and depends on the facts and available medical care. On the record, the petitioner's condition could be managed in custody, so medical bail was refused. The Court also found prima facie material linking him to the alleged laundering activity, noted that investigation was at an early stage, and accepted a real apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses. Bail was therefore declined on ordinary merits as well.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on the ground that he was sick or infirm. (ii) Whether the petitioner deserved bail in view of the prima facie materials, the stage of investigation, and the apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 on the ground that he was sick or infirm.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 45 carves out an exception for a sick or infirm person, but the expression is not defined in the statute and its application depends on the materials in each case. The discretionary nature of the proviso was emphasised, and the availability of medical care in custody was treated as relevant. On the facts, the petitioner had declined further medical options and the Court found that his condition could be adequately addressed by treatment from the prosecution agency or jail authorities.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not held entitled to bail on medical grounds.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner deserved bail in view of the prima facie materials, the stage of investigation, and the apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Analysis: The Court found prima facie material linking the petitioner to the alleged laundering activity and treated the case as one requiring further investigation. It accepted that the petitioner was unlikely to abscond, but held that his influence and position gave rise to a real apprehension of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. The Court also noted that the investigation was at an initial stage and that the prosecution version disclosed sufficient material to justify continued custody.

Conclusion: Bail was declined on merits and on the ground of investigative necessity.

Final Conclusion: The bail application failed because the petitioner did not establish a case for release either on medical exception or on ordinary bail considerations under the money-laundering regime.

Ratio Decidendi: A sick-or-infirm exception under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is discretionary and may be declined where adequate treatment is available in custody and the surrounding circumstances show a prima facie case, a real risk of interference with the investigation, or potential influence over witnesses.

---