The Delhi High Court refused to grant bail to an under-trial Prisoner who submitted a bail application on the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA) 2002. The petition was sought to extend the bail granted by the judge.
Sameer Mahandru, the accused/applicant submitted that the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) had registered a Registration Certificate copy (RC) at Police Station CBI, ACB, Delhi under Section 120B read with Section 447A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and substantive offences thereof read with Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, and CBI had conducted raids on several premises in the Delhi and across the country including residential and business premises of the applicant and had made certain seizures.
The Directorate of Enforcement had registered the present Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on 27.08.2022 and raids were conducted at the office and residence of the applicant on 06.09.2022. The applicant in the present case was arrested on 28.09.2022 by the Directorate of Enforcement.
On 03.01.2023, interim bail was granted to the applicant in the predicate offence registered by CBI but on 16.02.2023, the Trial Court dismissed the bail application filed by the applicant in the present ECIR. However, in the present ECIR, the applicant was granted interim medical bail for 30 days by the Trial Court and was granted regular bail on the same day in the predicate offence registered by the CBI. Thereafter, the interim medical bail of the applicant was extended by the Trial Court till 01.05.2023.
The applicant had approached the Court seeking a grant of regular bail by way of the present bail application and had also sought an extension of interim bail which had been granted by the Trial Court.
Since the applicant herein is an accused in an ECIR registered by the Directorate of Enforcement for the offences punishable under PMLA, the grant of bail shall be subject to the provisions of Section 45 of the Act,
The counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is wheelchair-bound and needs constant support to attend to his daily needs. To support this claim, the attention of this Court was repeatedly drawn to a video clip of the incident dated 06-07.09.2023 when the applicant had fallen in his jail cell and it was argued that the video clip clearly shows that the applicant had fallen and no one had come for his help.
It was found that the undertrial prisoners are sent to prison not as a matter of punishment, but in light of the law regarding there being grounds to confine them in prison. The laws of an individual’s right to liberty while being a precious right has to be surrendered in favour of the State when the grounds so exist for the same.
While the prisoners generally are unable to look after themselves while being in detention and it is primarily the responsibility of the State to provide health services, the health services and care have to be equivalent to that available to the outside general citizen.
It was evident that the jail authorities in view of the medical condition of the applicant have even allowed him to get treatment from his doctor on an outpatient basis, as and when required.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma viewed that there are no grounds to enlarge the applicant on regular bail in the present ECIR and disposed of the present bail application along with all pending applications.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
