Medical bail under PMLA proviso granted where jail could not provide specialised care and strict diet needed for recovery.

Interim bail on medical grounds was held available under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 where the accused was sick or infirm and custody could not adequately provide the specialised treatment or sustained care required. The petitioner's bariatric surgery, multiple comorbidities, recurrent post-operative complications, and the AIIMS Board report and DDU Hospital prescription showed that strict dietary and medical supervision was essential for recovery. Because the required care and diet were not being satisfactorily met in jail, interim bail was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interim bail on medical grounds under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis: The petitioner had undergone bariatric surgery and was shown to suffer from multiple comorbidities and recurrent post-operative complications. The medical material, including the AIIMS Board report and the prescription from DDU Hospital, indicated that strict and specialised dietary care was essential for recovery and that the dietary requirements were not being adequately met in jail. The Court applied the settled principle that medical bail under the proviso to Section 45(1) is warranted where the accused is sick or infirm and the required specialised treatment or sustained care cannot be effectively provided in custody.

Conclusion: The petitioner was found entitled to interim bail on medical grounds, since the required care and diet could not be satisfactorily provided in jail.

---