The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjay Jain (in JC) vs Enforcement Directorate consisting of Justice Vikas Mahajan held that the power to grant bail on medical grounds under the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 is discretionary, therefore, the same has to be exercised in a judicious manner guided by principles of law after recording satisfaction that necessary circumstances exist warranting exercise of such discretion.
Facts:
A petition was filed by the wife of the petitioner requesting bail for her husband in relation to a case pending in the Court of Ld. Special Judge (PC Act CBI-23), Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi. The wife also filed an affidavit asking for an interim bail for three months on medical and humanitarian grounds, stating that her husband was suffering from various pre-existing health conditions and that his health had worsened in jail due to lack of proper treatment. The petition requested urgent medical attention and interim bail for three months or a reasonable period due to their health condition. The court ordered a medical report from the jail authorities and received it on 26th May 2023, in response to the plea. The court considered the health condition described in the affidavit.
Contentions Made:
Petitioner: The petitioner was in critical condition and needed immediate medical attention, including surgery, but had not received the necessary treatment. He was experiencing symptoms like chest discomfort, dizziness, and nausea. Doctors recommended Coronary Angiography but scheduled it for November 2023. Relying on Vijay Aggarwal through Parokar v. Directorate of Enforcement, it was contended that the delay in treatment was sufficient reason to grant him interim bail on medical grounds. Despite having ECG tests that showed abnormalities, the date for Coronary Angiography had not been moved. He also had panic attacks that left him immobile for hours.
He also had severe tooth decay and needed multiple dental surgeries, which caused a lot of pain and made him have to eat mostly liquid food. He also had problems with his lower back that made it hard to move and was supposed to have an MRI test, but it was delayed. The delay showed that the State did not provide urgent and specialized healthcare. He also had sleep apnea and needed a CPAP machine that required someone to monitor it at night. Relying on a plethora of cases, it was submitted that as the petitioner was sick and infirm, he need not satisfy the twin conditions as envisaged in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) to seek interim bail.
Respondent: It was contended that the petitioner’s medical condition was not serious and could be adequately managed with oral medication in jail. Reliance was placed on State v. Jaspal Singh Gill and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Gayatri Prasad Prajapati to contend that the courts have consistently ruled that bail on medical grounds should only be granted if the jail cannot provide the necessary medical facilities. Reliance was also placed on Pawan Alias Tamatar v. Ram Prakash Pandey to contend that the discretion to grant bail on medical grounds should be used sparingly and only when it is demonstrated that the sickness is of such a nature that the accused cannot receive proper treatment if not released. Moreover, the jail authorities were fully equipped to handle all major ailments, and prisoners could be referred to specialized hospitals if necessary.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench noted that Article 21 of the Constitution protects the right to life and personal liberty, which can only be restricted through legal procedures. Although the liberty of those accused or convicted of a crime can be limited by the law, the right to health is also recognized as an important aspect of Article 21. Therefore, even if a person is in jail as an under trial or a convict, the state has an obligation to provide sufficient and effective medical treatment to them.
Relying on Pt. Parmanand Katara vs. Union of India & Ors., it further noted that those responsible for community health have a duty to save lives, whether that person is innocent or guilty of a crime, to protect the innocent and ensure punishment for the guilty. Moreover, in Re-inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, the Apex Court held that medical assistance to all is a human right to which prisoners are also entitled.
Regarding the question at hand, it referred to the provision of Section 45(1) of the PMLA the first proviso of which provided for the grant of bail on medical grounds regarding cognizable and non-bailable offences.
It relied on Kewal Krishan Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate where it observed that section 45(1) was incorporated as a lenient provision or to afford ‘relaxation’ to a sick or infirm person as noted in the Statement of Objects and Reasons to PMLA.
The legislature created an exception that allows the Special Court to grant bail based on humanitarian reasons to those under sixteen, women, or those who are sick or infirm. The Court does not have to require strict compliance with the conditions that the accused is not guilty of money laundering and will not commit any offense while on bail.
It found the reliance placed on Athar Parvez v. State to contend that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA would apply even in cases where the accused sought interim bail on medical grounds to be misplaced. It opined that the power to grant bail for medical reasons u/s 45(1) of the PMLA is discretionary and must be used carefully and based on legal principles. The decision should only be made if there are clear circumstances that call for it. But, it also observed that not every ailment entitles an accused for grant of bail on medical grounds but only if he is “sick” or “infirm”, as per the first proviso to Section 45 of PMLA.
Judgment:
The Bench admitted that the petitioner had the right to receive adequate medical treatment while in jail. If specialized treatment was necessary but could not be provided in jail, he might be entitled to interim bail. He had various medical conditions that required diagnostic procedures and treatment. However, the government hospitals were overburdened and could not provide the necessary treatment in a timely manner. It was also unclear from the medical records whether his conditions required specialized or sustained treatment.
A medical board was directed to be constituted to evaluate his medical condition. While the court could not assess the petitioner’s medical condition, it noted that his medical condition could not be ignored on humanitarian grounds.
The Jail Superintendent was directed to provide all medical records of the petitioner to a Medical Board of Doctors by 7th June 2023. The petitioner’s wife might also provide relevant medical records to the Board and the Directorate of Enforcement. The petitioner must be presented before the Board on 7th June 2023. The Board was directed to provide its report to the Court by 10th June 2023, indicating the urgency of the petitioner’s need for diagnostic procedures, whether his life is at risk due to delays in treatment, and whether specialized treatment and personal care was needed outside of jail.
Case: Sanjay Jain (in JC) vs Enforcement Directorate
Citation: Bail Appln. 3807 of 2022
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikas Mahajan
For Petitioner: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Madhav Khurana, Ms. Stuti Gujral, Ms. Trisha Mittal, Ms. Shaurya Singh, Mr. Faisal Zia Ahmed and Mr. Harsh Yadav, Advs.
For Respondent: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Spl. Counsel of ED, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Mr. Baibhav and Mr. Hasnain Khawja, Advs.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
