Delhi HC denies interim bail extension for knee surgery, rules non-life-threatening medical procedures can be performed in custody

Delhi HC denied extension of interim bail to accused who sought release for knee surgery (Arthroscopic Medial Meniscal Repair Surgery). Court held the medical condition was not life-threatening and surgery could be performed while in custody. Since accused had surrendered after trial court rejected extension and original surgery date had passed, court disposed petition allowing accused to reschedule surgery and seek fresh directions for undergoing procedure in custody with jail superintendent's supervision.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Extension of interim bail for the applicant.
2. Medical condition of the applicant's wife.
3. Applicant's own medical condition and need for surgery.
4. Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA and proviso for bail on medical grounds.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Extension of Interim Bail for the Applicant:
The applicant initially sought an extension of interim bail granted by the Trial Court but later surrendered after the extension request was denied. He then filed an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking interim bail for one month. The applicant had been in judicial custody since 28.09.2022, except for periods of interim bail due to his wife's medical condition. The Trial Court had previously extended his interim bail multiple times for his wife's surgery and post-operative care.

2. Medical Condition of the Applicant's Wife:
The applicant's wife underwent gall bladder removal surgery on 22.01.2024 and subsequently developed acute pancreatitis and other complications. The applicant argued that he needed to care for his ailing wife. However, the court noted that the applicant had already been on interim bail for 43 days on this ground and that further extensions were not warranted. The court emphasized that the applicant is accused in a serious case of money laundering and his regular bail application was dismissed due to the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA.

3. Applicant's Own Medical Condition and Need for Surgery:
The applicant's medical condition, including a Grade III Tear Posterior Horn of Medial Meniscus, necessitated surgery. The court reviewed medical reports indicating the need for "Arthroscopic Medial Meniscal Repair Surgery." The court acknowledged the applicant's medical condition but stated that it did not constitute a life-threatening situation requiring interim bail. Instead, the court permitted the applicant to undergo surgery while in custody, with the hospital of his choice, under the custody of the Jail Superintendent.

4. Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA and Proviso for Bail on Medical Grounds:
The court discussed the exceptions under Section 45 of the PMLA, which include cases where the accused is sick or infirm. Citing previous judgments, the court clarified that the sickness must be life-threatening and the treatment required must not be available in jail hospitals. The court concluded that the applicant's medical condition did not meet this threshold. The court referenced the case of Sameer Mahandru v. Directorate of Enforcement, emphasizing that the power to grant bail on medical grounds is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously.

Conclusion:
The court denied the extension of interim bail for the applicant, stating that the medical conditions of the applicant and his wife did not present compelling reasons for bail. The applicant was allowed to undergo the necessary surgery while in custody. The judgment highlighted the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA for granting bail on medical grounds and emphasized the need for a life-threatening condition to justify such bail. The petition and pending applications were disposed of, with the applicant given the liberty to reschedule his surgery and seek appropriate directions from the court.

---