Delhi High Court Grants Interim Bail To Liquor Policy Scam Accused On Medical Grounds

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Bail To Liquor Policy Scam Accused On Medical Grounds

Recently Hon’ble Delhi High Court has granted an interim bail to one of the accused in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam on the ground of his Medical condition and infirmity in accordance with Section 45(1) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act and held that “Health condition of a human being deserves utmost importance and right to health is one of the most significant dimensions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Every person has a right to get himself adequately and effectively treated. The exercise of discretion of the grant of bail is not to be exercised only as a last resort rather freedom is a cherished fundamental right”

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner formed a Partnership Firm “Indo Spirits” with one Arun Ramachandran Pillai and one Prem Rahul Manduri for the wholesale L-l license under the Delhi Excise Policy, 2021-22. The “Indo Spirits” applied for the Wholesale L-l License, and was granted the same on 8th November 2021, by Delhi Excise Department. The firm then commenced its business operations from 17th November 2021 in terms of Excise Policy 2021-22. During this period, several manufacturers appointed the Firm, Indo Spirits, as their Wholesale Distributor in Delhi under the new Excise Policy. The New Excise Policy, 2021-22 came to be challenged on various grounds.

Subsequently, on 17th August 2022, CBI registered FIR No. RC0032022A0053 under Sections 120B and 477A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioner and other accused persons regarding irregularities committed in the framing and implementation of the excise policy of the GNCTD for the year 2021-22.

The role ascribed to the petitioner in the Prosecution Complaint is that there are advance kickbacks of around Rs. 100 crores that were paid to the public servants in this conspiracy between the political persons, and Government officers/officials causing a total loss of Rs. 2873 cores to the exchequer of GNCTD.

The petitioner sought and granted an interim bail from the Trial Court on the ground of his Medical Conditions and now by way of this application U/s 439 Cr.P.C. he seeks extension of the interim bail.

CONTENTION OF PETITIONER

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the ailments suffered by the petitioner by submitting a comprehensive medical note. It is further submitted that the petitioner is under constant consultation and treatment of specialists and is suffering from debilitating pain and serious medical conditions, most of which, if not attended to and treated properly under regular monitoring, will cause irreversible damage.

He further relied on following judgments :-

Kewal Krishna Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1547 (Delhi HC)

Pranjil Batra v. Directorate of Enforcement, CRM-M-23705-2022 (O&M) (P&H HC)

Devki Nandan Garg v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3086 (Delhi HC)

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been granted interim bail on medical grounds by the Trial Court vide orders dated 28th February 2023, and 18th April 2023 after being satisfied of the twin conditions of Section 45(1) PMLA and upon consideration of the petitioner’s medical condition, putting him under the category of “sick or infirm” as per the provision.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT

Per Contra, Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate has submitted that as per the proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA, it is the discretion of the court to grant bail to persons falling under the categories as mentioned therein. The discretion is to be exercised based on the facts and circumstances of each and every case. The learned counsel submitted that the sickness contemplated by the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA can only be a sickness that involves a risk or danger to the life of the accused person and it is submitted that the facts of the present case do not warrant this discretionary relief.

It is submitted that as per the report, the condition of the petitioner was found to be stable and that his pain had decreased significantly. It is further submitted that if the disease of the person is life-threatening but his condition is found to be stable, he should not entitled to be enlarged on medical bail.

He further relied on following judgments :-

Asha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, SLP (Crl) 6202/2016

Surjeet vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2021 SCC OnLine Del 228

Rajkishor Sunnidhi Dash vs. State of Maharashtra, 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 11261

HON’BLE COURT’s OBSERVATIONS

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh observed that

“33. To appreciate the legislative intent of the Section 45(1) of the PMLA a reference can be made to Devaki Nandan v. Directorate of Enforcement, (Supra) whereby relaxations were given for a certain class of people in the rigors of PMLA provisions and it was observed that the stringent twin conditions of bail need not be satisfied if the person seeking bail falls in those relaxations or exceptions”.

Further, on question of what sickness or infirmity means, the Hon’ble Court held that :-

“35. This Court in Kewal Krishna Kumar v. Enforcement Directorate, Neutral Citation No-2023:DHC:1925 interpreted the term “sickness” or “infirmity” for the grant of interim bail on medical grounds. The Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that:

“25. I am of the opinion that when the sickness or infirmity is of such a nature that it is life-threatening and requires medical assistance that cannot be provided in penitentiary hospitals, then the accused should be granted bail under the proviso to section 45(1) PMLA.”

His lordship further relied on Mahendra Manilal Shah v. Rashmikant Mansukhlal Shah, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 2095 wherein Bombay High Court has held that the nature of the sickness needs to be seen as to whether the accused can be treated in the government hospitals and custody.

The court further stated that the fact that the petitioner is unable to sit, bend forward, and not even able to lift any weight suggests the infirmity on the part of the petitioner to carry out day-to-day routine activities and non-following the advice and the specialized treatment may lead to neurological damage to the petitioner.

In view of the above findings, the Hon’ble court granted an interim bail to the petitioner for 6 weeks on furnishing the bail bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- and two sureties. Furthermore, the Hon’ble court directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court on 26 July 2023.

Case title :- Sameer Mahandru Vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Case no. :- CRL. M.A. 10859/2023 in BAIL APPLN. 1343/2023

Order date :- 12.06.2023