9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 1169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was preferred on behalf of applicant seeking amendment of the prayer in the present bail application and for seeking interim bail for a period of one month in ECIR/HIU-II/14/2022 dated 22.08.2022 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement under Sections 3 and 4 of PMLA in Complaint Case No. 31/2022. 2. Brief facts, necessary for the adjudication of the present interim bail application, are that the applicant was arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement on 28.09.2022 and he was remanded to judicial custody vide order dated 10.10.2022. Since then, the applicant has been in judicial custody, except for the period of his interim bail i.e. from 28.02.2023 to 01.05.2023, from 12.06.2023 to 04.09.2023 and from 05.01.2024 to 17.02.2024. On 20.12.2023, the applicant had filed an interim bail application before the learned Trial Court seeking interim bail for a period of four weeks on the ground of medical condition of his wife who was suffering from "acute calculus cholecystitis" in her gall bladder and had been advised to undergo a "laparoscopic cholecystectomy" i.e. gall bladder removal surgery. Vide order dated 05.01.2024, the present applicant was granted interim bail for a period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on 26.02.2024, but the same could not be performed as the applicant was directed to surrender on 17.02.2024 since his interim bail was not extended by the learned Trial Court. It is also pointed out that in a previous medical report dated 04.10.2023, filed before the learned Trial Court by the jail authorities, the medical condition of the applicant qua is left knee was acknowledged. In these circumstances, it is prayed that interim bail be granted to the applicant since his and his wife"s medical condition is severely compromised. 4. Learned Special Counsel appearing on behalf of Directorate of Enforcement opposes the present interim bail application and argues that out of the total custody period of about 16 months, the applicant has already remained on interim bail for more than 5 months on medical grounds. It is argued that when the learned Trial Court had granted interim bail to the applicant on 05.01.2024 a condition was imposed on the applicant that he shall not seek any extension of interim bail on this ground, however, the applicant had not informed that the learned Trial Court on time about non-performance of the surgery of his wife so as to misuse the liberty and to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oth sides for and against the plea for further extension of interim bail of the applicant, but it cannot be ignored that the applicant is an accused in a serious case of money laundering and his regular bail application stands dismissed by this court due to applicability of twin conditions contained U/S 45 of the PMLA. Further, it can also be seen from record that during the total period of custody of applicant in this case which is stated to be around 16 months, he has been on interim bail on one or the other ground for around 5 months. The interim bail to applicant vide previous order dated 05.01.2024 of this court was granted for a specific purpose i.e. the above surgery of his wife, which now stands already performed on 22.01.2024 i.e. around 25/26 days prior to this order. Hence, simply because some post surgery complications have arisen, which can certainly be managed through medication, the interim bail of applicant cannot be extended again and again and for the purpose of taking care of his wife only. 17. Further, the interim bail of applicant has already been extended at different times and for different durations for or in connection with the above surgery and he has al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m that he needs to be admitted for "Arthroscopic Medial Meniscal Repair Surgery" on 26.02.2024. 11. However, as regards the argument of applicability of proviso of Section 45 of PMLA, it will be relevant to take note of the fact that Section 45 of PMLA provides exceptions to the general rule i.e. the cases where Special Courts can exercise their discretion de hors the satisfaction of twin conditions. These exceptions are as follows: a. accused is less than the age of 16 years, b. accused is a woman, c. accused is sick or infirm, or d. if the allegations of money laundering against the accused are of an amount less than one crore rupees. 12. This Court in case of Sameer Mahandru v. Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6680 had made the following observations on point of a person being entitled to bail under PMLA on grounds of suffering from "sickness" or "infirmity": "17. In the case at hand, learned Senior Counsels for the applicant have argued that the applicant herein is "sick" and "infirm", and thus, should be granted regular bail in the present ECIR. 18. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Kewal Krishan Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court has set aside the order of the Allahabad High Court granting bail to the accused inter alia on the ground that the allegation of ailment of the applicant is not specifically denied. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the ailment of the accused was not of such a nature as to require him to be released on bail. It was observed that the accused can always apply to the jail authorities to see that he gets the required treatment. It was observed that in the application, the applicant had not stated that he still needs medical treatment or that he has not received proper medical treatment from the jail authorities. ...... 50. As observed in the various judgments cited above, 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. In fact as observed earlier the said proviso cannot be resorted to in all cases of sickness. The Court must assess the nature of sickness and whether the sickness can be treated whilst in the custody or in government hospitals. The Court should also be satisfied that a case is made out by the Respondent Accused by himself or through the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial Counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement had stated that he had no objection to this prayer made by the applicant. 14. This Court notes that since the applicant had surrendered on 17.02.2024, after his extension application was rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 16.02.2024, the date which was scheduled for the surgery of the applicant i.e. 26.02.2024 has already passed. 15. Therefore, considering the medical condition of the applicant and medical documents filed on record, this Court is of the opinion that the present applicant can be allowed to undergo the required surgery while being in custody of the Jail Superintendent. However, a perusal of the documents filed on record also reveals that the date of surgery has not been re-scheduled which was earlier scheduled for 26.02.2024. Thus, the applicant will be at liberty to get the date of the surgery rescheduled and thereafter move a fresh application before this Court for seeking appropriate directions. 16. In view of the same, the present petition alongwith pending applications stands disposed of. 17. It is, however, clarified that nothing expressed herein above shall tantamount to an expression of opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
