Interim bail granted under PMLA Section 45 for accused with life-threatening medical condition requiring specialized treatment

HC granted interim bail to petitioner accused under PMLA Section 45 based on deteriorating medical condition. Court held that Section 45 proviso applies when sickness is life-threatening and cannot be treated in jail or requires specialized treatment unavailable in jail hospital. Relying on Delhi HC precedent, court found petitioner's condition fell within discretionary parameters of Section 45 proviso, qualifying him as "sick" and "infirm" requiring surgical treatment at specialized hospital. Court noted respondents' inadequate treatment approach and accepted petitioner's right to proper hospital treatment, granting interim bail for surgery at hospital of choice with jurisdiction restrictions.

---

---

The core legal questions considered by the Court include: (1) Whether the petitioner qualifies as "sick or infirm" within the meaning of the proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) so as to be entitled to interim bail for medical treatment; (2) Whether the petitioner's medical condition necessitates release on bail given the nature and seriousness of his injuries and the adequacy of medical treatment available in custody; (3) Whether the Enforcement Directorate (ED) complied with procedural safeguards during the petitioner's arrest, particularly under Section 77 BNSS, 2023; (4) The scope of judicial review over arrests under special statutes like PMLA, especially concerning allegations of illegal arrest and custodial mistreatment; and (5) The applicability and interpretation of the twin conditions under Section 45(1) of PMLA for grant of bail, particularly the requirement of reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit further offences.

Regarding the first issue on the petitioner's qualification as "sick or infirm" under Section 45 of PMLA, the Court examined the statutory framework which mandates that no person accused under PMLA shall be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor is heard and the Court is satisfied on the twin conditions of non-guilt and non-recidivism. However, the proviso carves out an exception allowing bail if the accused is a woman, under sixteen years of age, or "sick or infirm." The Court interpreted this proviso in light of judicial precedents including the Delhi High Court's decision in Kewal Krishan Kumar vs. Enforcement Directorate and the Bombay High Court's ruling in Mahendra Manilal Shah v. Rashmikant Mansukhlal Shah. These authorities establish that the sickness contemplated must be serious, life-threatening, and such that adequate treatment cannot be provided in jail hospitals. The Court emphasized that the power to grant bail on medical grounds is discretionary and must be exercised cautiously, ensuring that the accused's medical condition genuinely warrants release for specialized treatment unavailable in custody.

In applying this framework to the facts, the Court analyzed the petitioner's medical history post-arrest. The petitioner alleged severe assault by ED officials causing grievous injuries including a fractured left elbow, head injury, and neurological symptoms such as vomiting and severe backache. He contended that he was denied immediate and proper medical treatment, was moved between various hospitals under ED pressure, and prematurely discharged without surgery despite persistent pain and documented fractures. Medical reports from Civil Hospital Gurugram indicated the petitioner suffered from left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH), a serious cardiac condition increasing surgical risk. The petitioner was advised to undergo open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) surgery for the elbow fracture, but surgery was repeatedly deferred due to unstable blood pressure and other complications. Contrarily, the AIIMS medical opinion initially characterized the injury as an "old injury" manageable non-operatively, and PGIMS Rohtak's report found no neurological or cardiac complications requiring surgery at that time.

The Court noted these conflicting medical opinions but gave weight to the Civil Hospital Gurugram's findings and the petitioner's ongoing symptoms, concluding that the petitioner's condition fell within the ambit of "sick or infirm" under Section 45 proviso, warranting bail for specialized surgical treatment. The Court underscored that the petitioner's medical condition posed a high risk for surgery and required careful management unavailable in jail hospitals. The petitioner's undertaking not to leave Gurugram jurisdiction during interim bail was also considered relevant.

On the procedural issue concerning the arrest, the petitioner argued that the ED violated Section 77 BNSS, 2023, which requires that the substance of the warrant be notified to the person arrested and shown if demanded. The petitioner claimed he was neither served with the warrant nor informed of the grounds of arrest at the Shangri La Hotel where he was apprehended. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's contentions about non-compliance with procedural safeguards but did not elaborate in detail on this aspect in the final order, focusing primarily on medical bail considerations.

Regarding the scope of judicial review over arrests under special statutes like PMLA, the petitioner relied on Supreme Court precedents affirming that while judicial review is generally limited, courts can intervene if the arrest is alleged illegal or violative of fundamental rights. The Court recognized that constitutional courts possess jurisdiction to scrutinize the legality of arrest and protect individual rights, including in PMLA cases. This principle supported the petitioner's challenge to the manner of arrest and custodial treatment.

On the twin conditions under Section 45(1) PMLA for bail, the Court reiterated that bail is generally barred unless the accused is shown to be not guilty and unlikely to reoffend. However, the proviso allows bail for "sick or infirm" accused even if these conditions are not met, as a humanitarian exception. The Court referred to judgments interpreting the proviso as analogous to Section 437 CrPC and held that the sickness must be grave and life-threatening to justify bail. The Court rejected the ED's submission that medical treatment in jail hospitals precludes bail, noting that the petitioner's condition and medical reports indicated the need for specialized hospital care not available in custody.

The Court carefully weighed the competing medical evidence and the petitioner's allegations of custodial mistreatment and denial of adequate medical care. While the ED contended that the petitioner refused cooperation with doctors and left hospitals against medical advice, the Court found the petitioner's medical condition sufficiently serious to merit interim bail for surgery. The Court also noted the petitioner's undertaking to comply with bail conditions and surrender by a specified date, emphasizing the exceptional and one-time nature of the relief granted.

In conclusion, the Court granted interim bail to the petitioner for undergoing surgery at a hospital of his choice, subject to furnishing a surety of Rs. 2 lakhs and surrendering to jail authorities by 12 July 2025. The Court clarified that no extension of this interim bail would be granted and that the relief was confined to the exceptional circumstances of the petitioner's medical condition.

Significant holdings include the following verbatim excerpts and core principles:

"The proviso to Section 45 should only be invoked in cases where the sickness suffered is so serious and life endangering that it cannot be treated in jail, or the specialized treatment as required cannot be provided from jail hospital."

"The sickness contemplated by the first proviso to Section 45 of PMLA is a sickness or infirmity involving risk or danger to the life of the accused and the relaxation provided thereunder is only upon satisfaction of the Court that the accused's sickness or infirmity is so grave that it is life endangering and the treatment is so specialized that it cannot be provided in the jail hospital."

"Mere admission of an accused to a hospital for medical treatment does not entitle an accused to obtain bail under the proviso to Section 437(1) Cr. P.C. The Court must assess the nature of sickness and whether the sickness can be treated whilst in the custody or in government hospitals."

"The petitioner's medical condition falls within the broad and discretionary parameters of first proviso to Section 45 of PMLA to hold him 'sick' and 'infirm' and thus he very much require surgical treatment at a specialized hospital."

"The petitioner has got a right for proper treatment in a hospital of his choice merits acceptance moreso when the petitioner has undertaken that he will not leave the jurisdiction of Gurugram during the interim bail period."

Final determinations on each issue are: (1) The petitioner qualifies as "sick or infirm" under Section 45 proviso of PMLA due to his serious medical condition requiring specialized surgical treatment unavailable in jail; (2) Interim bail is granted to enable the petitioner to undergo surgery at a hospital of his choice with conditions; (3) The Court recognized procedural irregularities alleged in arrest but focused relief on medical bail; (4) Judicial review of arrests under PMLA includes scrutiny of legality and custodial rights; (5) The twin conditions under Section 45(1) PMLA remain applicable but are relaxed for "sick or infirm" accused as a humanitarian exception.

---