2022 (5) TMI 1697 - SCH - Money Laundering

Medical-based PMLA s.45 bail and accused's foreign travel concerns; bail upheld with weekly in-person ED reporting condition.

Regular bail granted under the proviso to s.45(1) PMLA on medical grounds was challenged on the allegation of flight risk due to permission to travel ... Seeking grant of regular bail - bail is sought on medical grounds - stand of Revenue is that there is a possibility that the petitioner may flee from the country, as he has been granted the permission to travel abroad - it is held by High Court that 'After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the medical record of the petitioner, which is based on a report of Medical Board comprising of seven doctors, constituted by Civil Surgeon, Ambala, it is found that case of the petitioner would be covered under proviso to Section 45(i) of PMLA as he is a sick person requiring urgent medical treatment, especially in view of the fact that while in custody for a period of about 03 months, he was repeatedly advised medical care, as noticed in earlier part of this order.' HELD THAT:- There are no reason to entertain the Special Leave Petition on the merits of the order granting bail on medical grounds. However, Mr Mukul Rohatgi has stated that the first respondent will physically mark his presence once a week before the Investigating Officer of the Enforcement Directorate either at Gurugram or at Delhi, as the case may be. The direction for the marking of the presence through video conferencing shall accordingly stand modified with the aforesaid direction. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Leave to file the Special Leave Petition was granted, but the Court found 'no reason to entertain the Special Leave Petition on the merits of the order granting bail on medical grounds.' The challenge to the bail order was therefore not accepted on merits. The Court addressed compliance with bail conditions by modifying the reporting requirement: based on a statement that the respondent would 'physically mark his presence once a week before the Investigating Officer of the Enforcement Directorate either at Gurugram or at Delhi, as the case may be,' the earlier direction permitting presence-marking through video conferencing was altered. The Court directed that 'the direction for the marking of the presence through video conferencing shall accordingly stand modified with the aforesaid direction.' Subject to this modification regarding weekly physical appearance before the Enforcement Directorate's Investigating Officer, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed, and any pending application was disposed of.