Accused granted interim bail on medical grounds despite serious PMLA charges due to neurological ailments

Delhi HC granted interim bail on medical grounds to an accused facing serious charges under PMLA. The petitioner suffered from painful neurological ailments requiring immediate attention, with MRI scheduled for December 2023 after previous bail denial in September 2022. The court noted that while allegations were serious and would be examined under Section 45 PMLA during regular bail proceedings, the lengthy delay in medical examination warranted interim relief. The court emphasized this decision was based on peculiar circumstances and should not be treated as precedent. Interim bail was granted until February 10, 2023, subject to conditions, with directions to authorities to expedite medical examinations for prisoners.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Interim bail application on medical grounds.
2. Medical condition and treatment of the petitioner.
3. Opposition by the respondent.
4. Legal precedents and statutory provisions.
5. Court's discretion and conditions for granting bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interim Bail Application on Medical Grounds:
The petitioner, aged about 59 years, sought interim bail due to various ailments, particularly spine and back issues, which have worsened during incarceration. The petitioner argued that he has not received proper treatment in jail, citing an MRI conducted on 03.02.2021 and subsequent medical supervision.

2. Medical Condition and Treatment of the Petitioner:
The petitioner suffers from serious lumbar pain, diagnosed with PIVD (Prolapsed Intervertebral Disk), LCS (Lumbar Canal Stenosis) L-3, L-4, L-5, and L5-S1, causing nerve compression, immense pain, and limb stiffness. Despite hospitalization and constant medical supervision before arrest, the petitioner's condition deteriorated in jail. The medical board at G.B. Pant Hospital noted significant decreases in strength and sensory powers due to lack of treatment. The petitioner’s MRI was scheduled for 08.12.2023, with no neurosurgery evaluation conducted yet.

3. Opposition by the Respondent:
The respondent vehemently opposed the bail application, arguing that there was no significant change in circumstances since the previous bail application was dismissed. The petitioner’s condition was deemed stable, with only oral medication prescribed. The respondent referenced multiple judgments to argue that interim bail should not be granted in such cases, emphasizing the strict conditions under Section 45 of PMLA.

4. Legal Precedents and Statutory Provisions:
The respondent cited several judgments, including State vs. Jaspal Singh Gill and State of U.P. vs. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati, to support the argument against granting interim bail. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and the twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA, which require reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty and will not commit any offense while on bail.

5. Court's Discretion and Conditions for Granting Bail:
The court emphasized the paramount importance of health, stating that custody during investigation should not be punitive. Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to live with dignity, including adequate medical treatment. The court granted interim bail, noting the petitioner’s serious ailments and the delay in medical evaluations. Conditions for bail included furnishing a bail bond, staying within the National Capital Region, remaining available for contact, not tampering with evidence, and surrendering by 10th February, 2023.

Conclusion:
The court granted interim bail on medical grounds, highlighting the need for immediate medical treatment and the right to health under Article 21. The decision was made without delving into the merits of the case, ensuring the petitioner’s medical needs are met while maintaining legal safeguards. The interim bail was granted with specific conditions to prevent misuse and ensure compliance with judicial processes.

---