2025 (3) TMI 1251 - HC - Money Laundering

86-year-old with cognitive impairment granted bail under PMLA Section 45(1) proviso despite medical board opinion

Delhi HC granted regular bail to an 86-year-old petitioner under PMLA. The court held that despite a medical board's opinion that the petitioner could be ... Seeking grant of Regular bail - petitioner qualifies as 'sick or infirm' under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 or not - petitioner is 86 years old and is suffering from multiple ailments - Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA - requirement to fulfil triple test - delay in trial - HELD THAT:- A purposive interpretation of the proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA indicates that it was included as a lenient measure to provide ‘relaxation’ for a sick or infirm individual, as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the PMLA. What is the level of sickness that qualifies an accused as ‘sick’ under the proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA? - HELD THAT:- While there is no strict formula to determine the level of illness required for bail under this proviso, the general guideline is that when the sickness is serious enough to pose a threat to life and requires medical assistance and treatment which is specialized and unavailable in jail facilities, the accused should be granted bail under the proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA. However, this is not an exhaustive criterion and each case should be evaluated based on its unique facts and circumstances. In the present case, the medical board of AIIMS, Delhi constituted vide Order dated 18.09.2023 submitted its report on 04.12.2023. The medical assessment of the petitioner by the board was conducted on 18.10.2023 and 22.10.2023 - A division bench of this Court in Sandeep Aggarwal v. Priyanka Aggarwal, [2021 (12) TMI 1431 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has observed that the courts cannot sit in appeal of the opinion of the medical board as the judges are not experts in medical fields. Thus, an opinion of doctors who are experts cannot be supplanted by a court overstepping its jurisdiction. Thus, the petitioner is not ‘sick’ to fall within the ambit of proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA since the petitioner can be treated in jail for the ailment as categorically opined by the medical board. Admittedly, the petitioner, aged 86, suffers from cognitive impairment, pseudodementia and recurrent dizziness, along with a history of falls. A medical board from AIIMS has recommended that he requires constant monitoring due to the risk of falls. Given his diagnosed subjective cognitive decline, it is clear that he needs supervision throughout the day, which cannot be adequately provided by jail authorities. Furthermore, considering his age, the likelihood of improvement in his age-related infirmities is minimal and it is expected that his condition will continue to decline - beneficial legislation in favour of a class of persons, which is reflective of constitutional spirit, should not be considered narrowly and must be given a liberal interpretation. Thus, the aforementioned infirmities in a senile stage combined with the need for constant ‘monitoring’ coupled with frequent falls and forgetfulness makes the petitioner ‘infirm’ under the proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA. The petitioner falls within the ambit of ‘infirm’ under the proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA and thus, he is not required to meet the twin test of section 45 (1) of PMLA. Requirement of fulfilment of triple test of Flight risk, Influencing any witness and Tampering with evidence - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has been released on interim bail since 08.08.2022 on medical grounds and there are no allegations of misuse of liberty by him while on bail - As regards the flight risk, adequate restrictions can be imposed upon the petitioner - the petitioner meets the triple test for grant of bail. Delay in trial - HELD THAT:- There are 17 accused persons, 66 companies, 121 witnesses and 77,812 pages of documents plus enormous digital data which needs to be analysed in the present case. Thus, there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded in the near future - In the case of Pankaj Kumar Tiwari v. Directorate of Enforcement, [2024 (10) TMI 1351 - DELHI HIGH COURT], a co-ordinate bench of this Court observed that the right of the accused to speedy trial is an important aspect which the courts must keep in contemplation while deciding a bail application as the same is higher sacrosanct constitutional right, which ought to take precedence. Conclusion - i) The petitioner falls within the ambit of 'infirm' under the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA, exempting him from the stringent bail conditions typically required under this section. ii) The petitioner satisfies the triple test for bail, as there is no substantial evidence of flight risk, witness influence, or evidence tampering. iii) The delay in trial proceedings, coupled with the petitioner's right to a speedy trial, warrants the granting of bail. The petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail, subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include:Whether the petitioner qualifies as 'sick or infirm' under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), thereby exempting him from the stringent bail conditions.Whether the petitioner satisfies the triple test for bail, which includes assessing flight risk, potential to influence witnesses, and likelihood of tampering with evidence.Whether the delay in trial proceedings justifies granting bail to the petitioner, considering the constitutional right to a speedy trial.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLAThe legal framework for bail under the PMLA is governed by Section 45, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail. The proviso to Section 45(1) provides an exception for certain categories, including women, minors, and those who are sick or infirm.The Court examined the legislative intent behind the proviso, noting that it was intended to offer leniency to vulnerable groups. The Court referenced precedents such as Devki Nandan Garg v. Directorate of Enforcement and Kewal Krishan Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate, which elucidate the purpose of the proviso as a relaxation for specific categories.The Court determined that while the petitioner did not meet the criteria for 'sick' as per the medical board's assessment, he did qualify as 'infirm' due to his advanced age and associated health conditions. The Court emphasized a liberal interpretation of the term 'infirm' to align with the constitutional spirit of protecting vulnerable individuals.2. Triple Test for BailThe Court applied the triple test for bail, which assesses:Flight Risk: The Court found that adequate restrictions could mitigate any flight risk posed by the petitioner.Influencing Witnesses: The Court noted the lack of evidence supporting allegations that the petitioner influenced witnesses, particularly in relation to the statement of Sunil Kher, which could only be evaluated at trial.Tampering with Evidence: The Court found no substantial evidence of the petitioner tampering with evidence during his interim bail period.The Court concluded that the petitioner met the triple test for bail.3. Delay in TrialThe Court considered the significant delay in trial proceedings, noting that the case was registered in 2018 and involved a complex investigation with numerous accused, witnesses, and documents. The Court referenced the constitutional right to a speedy trial as articulated in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement and V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, emphasizing that prolonged pre-trial detention without a foreseeable trial conclusion infringes on this right.The Court determined that the delay in trial proceedings, coupled with the petitioner's prolonged incarceration, justified granting bail.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that:The petitioner falls within the ambit of 'infirm' under the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA, exempting him from the stringent bail conditions typically required under this section.The petitioner satisfies the triple test for bail, as there is no substantial evidence of flight risk, witness influence, or evidence tampering.The delay in trial proceedings, coupled with the petitioner's right to a speedy trial, warrants the granting of bail.The Court granted bail to the petitioner under specific conditions, emphasizing that these observations were solely for the purpose of deciding the bail petition and should not affect the case's merits.