The Delhi High Court expounded that Article 21 covers a fundamental right to live with dignity and it includes the right to live a healthy life. The discretion to grant an interim bail must not be exercised when the person is breathing his last breath or is in a position where he might not survive. The Court granted interim bail looking at the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and further clarified that this case must not be treated as a precedent in another case.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner is an accused who has filed the present application for interim bail on the grounds of medical reasons.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
It was submitted that Petitioner is almost 60 years old having problems in the spine and back for which constant medical supervision is required. The ailment has worsened as the Petitioner could not get access to proper treatments in jail. It was submitted that the Petitioner is suffering from serious lumber pain and had been diagnosed with PIVD LCS as well due to which the Petitioner suffers from pain and stiffness in his limbs. Due to a lack of proper treatment, the Petitioner has been experiencing a loss of strength and sensory powers. It was argued that for the Petitioner to have his neurology examination done, interim bail should be granted.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent contended that earlier one bail application got rejected and now, there has been no such change in circumstance because of which bail should be granted. It was argued that the ailment suffered by Petitioner is not such that immediate hospitalization is required. Further, relying on Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “PMLA”), it was contended that interim bail should not be granted as twin conditions have not been fulfilled. It was also argued that since the medical condition is stable, there is no need to grant bail to the Petitioner.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that as per the medical reports, the condition of the Petitioner is stable. Noting that the charges and allegations against the Petitioner are serious, the Bench remarked that health is paramount. It was opined that every person has a right to get medically treated. It is the responsibility of the State and the Judiciary to take care of the health of a person who is in custody. Further, custody during investigations cannot be made punitive in nature.
The High Court expounded that Article 21 covers a fundamental right to live with dignity and it includes the right to live a healthy life. The discretion to grant an interim bail must not be exercised when the person is breathing his last breath or is in a position where he might not survive.
The decision of the Court:
The Petitioner in the present case is in pain and needs immediate treatment. The Delhi High Court granted interim bail after looking at the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and further clarified that this case must not be treated as a precedent in another case. Accordingly, the application was disposed of.
Case Title: Vijay Agrawal Through Parokar v. Directorate of Enforcement
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 1762/2022
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Mr. Arjun Dewan, Mr. Shahryar Khan, Mr. Akash Arora, Ms. Arshiya Ghose, Ms. Shubhangi Jain, Mr. Aditya Raju, Mr. Sheezan Hashmi
Advocates for Respondent: Advs. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Mr. Vivek Goswami, Mr. Siddharth Kaushik, Mr. Rajendra Singh
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
