The Hon’ble Bombay High Court exercising its discretionary power under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and considering the deteriorating health condition of the wife of former Chairman of Jet Airways, Naresh Goyal, granted interim bail for two months [Naresh Goyal vs Directorate of Enforcement and Ors., Bail App No: 1901 of 2024].
Mr. Goyal who was in jail and is facing charges under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which includes offenses punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Background of the Case
The former Chairman of Jet Airways, Naresh Goyal (“the applicant”), currently arraigned in Special Case No. 1728 of 2023, faces charges under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), and is presently in judicial custody. These charges are related to a predicate offense outlined in a First Information Report (FIR), which includes offenses punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(c) and 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, investigated by the CBI, BS&FB Delhi.
The applicant has filed a bail application on medical grounds, citing terminal cancer for both himself and his wife, Anita. Allegations suggest that the applicant, along with other accused individuals, deceived banks by diverting funds through subsidiaries of M/s. Jet Airways (India) Ltd., resulting in significant losses to Canara Bank and the erstwhile Syndicate Bank. Despite the applicant’s critical medical condition, the bail application primarily focuses on the dire health circumstances of both the applicant and his wife.
The applicant is currently admitted to Sir H.N. Reliance Hospital, suffering from duodenal cancer, while his wife, Anita, also battles severe cancer. Medical reports and professional advice underscore the complexities of treatment and the challenges faced by the couple. The applicant argues that continued detention would violate the fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Given the absence of flight risk, tampering with evidence, and the applicant’s strong ties to society, the plea seeks release on bail solely on medical grounds.
Submissions made by the applicant.
Mr. Salve, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant, argued that while there are allegations against the applicant, his dire personal circumstances warrant humane consideration. Both the applicant and his wife suffer from terminal cancer, making their situation especially precarious. Mr. Salve emphasized that the applicant is not only sick but also infirm, both physically and mentally. He urged the court to grant bail to allow the applicant to receive treatment for cancer and care for his ailing wife.
On the other hand, Mr. Venegaonkar, the learned Special Public Prosecutor, contended that the respondent has not taken an unreasonable stance. While acknowledging the applicant’s need for treatment, Mr. Venegaonkar argued that the applicant is currently receiving treatment at the hospital of his choice, and there is no medical opinion suggesting that he is fit for discharge. He emphasized that the applicant’s priority should be receiving proper medical care rather than seeking bail. Mr. Venegaonkar further argued that since the applicant is receiving adequate treatment, he does not merit bail solely on medical grounds.
Observations by the Court
The court examined the scope of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which allows for the release on bail of individuals who are sick or infirm. The court noted that discretion must be exercised judiciously, and that sickness must be of a degree that cannot be adequately treated in prison or government hospitals. The court emphasized the importance of preserving the right to life and dignity of prisoners, regardless of the severity of their ailments.
The court extensively deliberated on the legal framework concerning bail in cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), particularly focusing on Section 45(1) and its first proviso. While Section 45(1) sets strict conditions for bail, the proviso grants discretion to the court to release certain individuals, such as those under 16, women, or those sick or infirm. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of this provision, highlighting the need for judicious exercise of discretion based on the individual’s circumstances. It discussed the interpretation of ‘sick’ or ‘infirm’ and the importance of medical reports in assessing the severity of illness.
Additionally, it underscored the obligation of the state to provide necessary medical treatment to prisoners. The court referenced relevant case law and analyzed the specific medical conditions of the applicant and his wife. Considering the critical conditions and the risks involved in treatment, the court deemed it appropriate to grant bail for a limited period. It acknowledged the applicant’s roots in society and addressed concerns regarding tampering with evidence by imposing stringent conditions.
Ultimately, the court justified the exercise of discretion under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA in light of the unique circumstances presented in the case and released Mr. Naresh Goyal on bail for two months.
What were the conditions imposed by the Court while granting bail?
The Court imposed the following conditions on Applicant:
- The Applicant be released on bail, for a period of two months, on furnishing a P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.1 Lakh and one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, PMLA, Court Mumbai.
- The Applicant shall remain within the jurisdiction of the PMLA Court i.e. Greater Mumbai and shall not leave the area without prior permission of the PMLA Court.
- The Applicant shall surrender his passport before the PMLA Court, if not already surrendered.
- The applicant shall furnish his contact details, and mobile number to the IO, and shall always be reachable to the IO.
- The Applicant shall not, either himself, or through any other person, tamper with the prosecution evidence and give threats or inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses.
- The Applicant shall not indulge in any activity similar to the activities on the basis of which the Applicant stands prosecuted.
- The Applicant shall not try to establish communication with the co-accused or any other person involved directly or indirectly in similar activities, through any mode of communication.
- In the event the Applicant violates any of the aforesaid conditions, the relief of bail granted by this Court shall be liable to be cancelled.
- After release of the Applicant on bail, he shall file an undertaking within one week before the PMLA Court stating therein that he will strictly abide by the aforesaid conditions.
- By way of abundant caution, it is clarified that the observations made in the order are limited to the consideration of the question of grant of bail on medical grounds and they shall not be construed as an expression of opinion which bears on the merits of the matter in this case as well as the prosecution for the predicate offences.
…
Contact us at hello@lawgacy.com to feature your firm’s deals, articles, columns, or press releases.
