Serious medical illness can justify anticipatory bail under PMLA despite statutory restrictions when supported by reliable medical evidence.

Serious medical illness can justify anticipatory bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 where supported by reliable medical evidence, including a specialist board report. The applicant was a post-renal transplant patient needing close observation, immunosuppressive medication, and careful management of associated conditions, and the Court found no basis to disbelieve that assessment. It further treated sickness as a relevant ground under the proviso to Section 45 and held that Section 45 restrictions do not prevent constitutional relief where circumstances warrant it. Anticipatory bail was therefore granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 should be granted in view of the applicant's serious medical condition, the medical board's report, and the statutory restrictions under Section 45.

Analysis: The applicant's claim of serious illness was supported by medical material and by the report of a five-member medical board constituted by SGPGI, which described him as a post-renal transplant patient requiring close observation, immunosuppressive medicines, and careful management of associated conditions. The Court also noticed the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which recognises sickness as a relevant ground, and relied on the view that the restrictions under Section 45 do not operate so as to defeat the constitutional court's powers where the circumstances justify relief. The Court further found no reliable basis to disbelieve the medical board's assessment and noted that the applicant's alleged non-cooperation and witness-influencing allegations were denied and did not dislodge the medical basis for relief.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was warranted and the application was allowed.

---