Court says “sick or infirm” under Section 45(1) PMLA must be judged cumulatively from present medical condition, not limited to terminal or life-threatening illness
The Delhi High Court has granted regular bail to Amitabh Jhunjhunwala, who was in judicial custody in a money laundering case linked to allegations of large-scale diversion of funds involving Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd. and Reliance Home Finance Ltd. The Court held that the petitioner’s medical condition, assessed cumulatively, brought him within the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which permits bail to a person who is “sick or infirm.”
Justice Madhu Jain observed that the expressions “sick” and “infirm” cannot be narrowly read to mean only terminal, irreversible, or imminently life-threatening illness. The Court said it would be impermissible to add such requirements into the statute. The judge emphasized that infirmity may exist where a person suffers substantial impairment in physical functioning, even if the condition is not immediately fatal.
Jhunjhunwala, around 70 years old, had approached the Court seeking bail primarily on medical grounds. His counsel argued that he suffered from coronary artery disease, a prior angioplasty with stent implantation, a D-11 vertebral compression fracture, spinal degeneration, kyphosis, osteoporosis, sarcopenia, and other complications. It was submitted that his condition had worsened during custody and that he required structured rehabilitation, physiotherapy, bracing, and specialist supervision that could not be effectively provided in jail.
The Enforcement Directorate opposed the plea, arguing that the petitioner’s ailments were being managed conservatively, that he had been taken to several government hospitals, and that medical boards had not recommended surgery or prolonged hospitalization. The agency also pointed to the seriousness of the allegations and the risk of interference with witnesses.
The Court, however, found that the medical records had to be read as a whole and not in isolation. It noted that while one report described the D-11 fracture as healed, later records continued to reflect spinal pathology and recommended specialty treatment, supervised rehabilitation, postural precautions, physiotherapy, and strengthening exercises. The Court also took note of the jail medical officer’s report stating that the petitioner was getting only marginal relief from medication and required specialized and regular treatment.
The Court held that repeated hospital visits and diagnostic tests did not by themselves answer the real question: whether the required treatment could be effectively and continuously provided while the accused remained in custody. It further observed that conservative management is still treatment, but the issue was whether the advised treatment was actually being received in a structured manner.
Balancing the medical concerns against the prosecution’s apprehensions, the Court said that the risk of witness interference could be addressed by strict bail conditions. Jhunjhunwala was ordered to be released on a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties of the same amount. He has been directed to furnish his address and mobile number, surrender his passport if he has one, not leave the country without permission, appear before the trial court on every date, and refrain from contacting or influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the question of bail on medical grounds and would not affect the merits of the prosecution case.
Bottom Line:
Under the proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA, "sick or infirm" is to be construed on the basis of the accused's present medical condition cumulatively, and not by insisting on a terminal, irreversible, or imminently life-threatening illness; where custodial treatment is only marginal and structured/supervised rehabilitation is required, regular bail can be granted on medical grounds.
Statutory provision(s): Section 45(1) proviso, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Amitabh Jhunjhunwala v. Directorate of Enforcement, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2983591
