Interim bail granted in money-laundering case on medical and humanitarian grounds under proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA

HC granted interim bail to the petitioner in a money-laundering case on medical and humanitarian grounds, finding the accused suffers serious health complications warranting application of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA and thus exempting strict satisfaction of the twin conditions. Bail was allowed without adjudicating merits, on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of like amount (one local) to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Calcutta, subject to specified conditions.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether an accused who is "sick or infirm" within the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is exempted from satisfying the twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45(1).

2. If exemption under the proviso applies, whether the accused must nonetheless satisfy additional limitations under Section 45(2) and the general bail law (i.e., the applicability of the "triple test" under Section 45(2)).

3. The quantum and quality of medical evidence required to attract the proviso to Section 45(1) - specifically, whether imprisonment can provide adequate medical care for the illness alleged.

4. Whether interim bail on medical and humanitarian grounds is appropriate in circumstances where custodial treatment is found inadequate, and what conditions are appropriate to safeguard the prosecution's case pending trial.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Exemption under the Proviso to Section 45(1)

Legal framework: Section 45(1) makes offences under the Act cognizable and non-bailable, subject to two conditions (opportunity to Public Prosecutor to oppose; satisfaction that accused is not guilty and not likely to offend while on bail). The proviso exempts specified categories including those who are "sick or infirm" from the rigours of sub-section (1).

Precedent Treatment: Authorities recognizing medical/infirmity exception (e.g., Devki Nandan Garg and similar decisions) are acknowledged and followed as establishing that serious sickness/infirmity can attract the proviso.

Interpretation and reasoning: The proviso is interpreted to permit release of an accused who is "sick or infirm" without the need to satisfy the twin conditions in sub-section (1) where custodial facilities cannot provide required medical care. The Court applies this interpretation to the record medical findings that demonstrate progressive, incurable, disabling neuro-degenerative disease with attendant comorbidities and need for continuous care.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an accused's medical condition is such that adequate treatment cannot be provided in custody, the proviso allows exemption from the twin conditions in Section 45(1). Obiter - general observations about qualitative differences between jail treatment and civilian care as observed in prior authority are explanatory.

Conclusion: The Court concludes that the accused's documented, progressive, disabling illness places him within the proviso to Section 45(1), thereby exempting him from satisfying the twin conditions of bail under that sub-section.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Applicability of Section 45(2) and the "Triple Test"

Legal framework: Section 45(2) reiterates that limitations in sub-section (1) are in addition to other limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law on grant of bail.

Precedent Treatment: Decisions relied upon by the prosecution where medical grounds were rejected involved accused who were not suffering from life-threatening or custodially unmanageable conditions; those cases are treated as inapposite rather than as overruling the proviso.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasons that where the proviso exempts an accused from the limitations in Section 45(1), the additional limitations referred to in Section 45(2) (i.e., limitations under other law) do not apply in a manner that negates the proviso's exemption. In other words, once the proviso operates, the specific twin conditions are not required; the accused need not separately satisfy Section 45(2)'s additional limitations that are predicated on Section 45(1)'s applicability.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - exemption under the proviso relieves the accused from the rigours of Section 45(1), and the attendant additional limitations under Section 45(2) do not reinstate those rigours in a way that defeats the proviso. Obiter - observations regarding particulars of the triple test in scenarios where proviso is not engaged.

Conclusion: The Court holds that the accused, having satisfied the medical threshold for the proviso, is not required to undergo the twin-condition inquiry under Section 45(1); the burden of Section 45(2) does not operate to nullify the statutory exception in the proviso in the facts of this case.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Sufficiency and Nature of Medical Evidence

Legal framework: Release on medical grounds requires demonstration that the accused's medical condition is such that requisite treatment cannot reasonably be provided in custody; seriousness and magnitude of the ailment must be ascertained.

Precedent Treatment: Prior rulings that denied medical bail are distinguished on the ground that those accused either did not have life-threatening/uncurable conditions, did not require ongoing treatment, or there was no evidence of aggravation.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court relied on a multi-member medical board's contemporaneous, detailed report diagnosing a progressive, incurable neuro-degenerative disorder with severe physical and cognitive disabilities, need for assistance in all basic activities, and comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, recurrent syncope) requiring continuous management. The Court emphasizes the qualitative difference between custodial medical care and civilian/home care, and finds custodial care inadequate to meet the accused's needs.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - a detailed, expert medical board report establishing progressive, disabling, incurable condition and custodial unavailability of adequate care suffices to attract the proviso. Obiter - general remarks on standards of custodial medical treatment.

Conclusion: The medical evidence is sufficient and persuasive that custodial facilities cannot provide the continuous and prolonged care required; thus the accused qualifies as "sick or infirm" under the proviso.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 4: Appropriateness and Conditions of Interim Bail

Legal framework: Even when medical bail is granted, the court may impose conditions to protect the integrity of investigation and trial (e.g., sureties, residence, prohibition on tampering/intimidation, appearance obligations, restrictions on movement), and grant may be time-limited and subject to recall.

Precedent Treatment: The Court follows practice in prior decisions granting interim bail on medical grounds while imposing protective conditions; distinguishes cases where bail was denied for lack of exigent medical need.

Interpretation and reasoning: Balancing humanitarian considerations and prosecutorial concerns, the Court grants interim bail for a defined period subject to monetary bond and sureties, residence within trial court jurisdiction, non-tampering/intimidation condition, appearance obligations (physical if health permits; otherwise virtual or through counsel), disclosure and maintenance of contact number, and direction that failure to comply permits cancellation of bail. The Court frames these conditions as proportionate safeguards to prevent prejudice to investigation and trial while addressing the accused's medical necessities.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - interim medical bail may be granted where custodial care is inadequate, subject to tailored conditions and time limits to protect prosecution's case. Obiter - specific suggested modalities of electronic appearance or passport surrender where applicable.

Conclusion: Interim bail is granted on medical and humanitarian grounds until a specified date, on furnishing bond and sureties and subject to enumerated conditions; non-compliance will permit recall/cancellation in accordance with law.

Cross-References and Ancillary Findings

1. The Court expressly distinguishes authorities cited by the prosecution on the factual basis that those accused did not demonstrate life-threatening or custodially unmanageable conditions.

2. The Court reiterates that only serious sickness/infirmity, exemplified by medical evidence of progressive and disabling disease and inability of jail facilities to provide requisite care, attracts the proviso.

3. The Court's order is confined to interim humanitarian relief and does not adjudicate the merits of the alleged offences; protective conditions are imposed to minimize prejudice to prosecution and trial processes.

---