The Discretionary Authority of Granting Bail on Medical Considerations Under the PMLA Must Be carried out With Caution: The Delhi High Court


BAIL APPLN. 3807/2022

Judgment on – 05.06.2023



“The independence of a person accused or found guilty of an offense can be curtailed according to the procedure prescribed by law; nevertheless, right to health is also recognized as an important facet of Article 21 of the constitution; simply because a person is under trial or, for that matter, a convict, placed in jail, this facet of right to life cannot be curtailed; it remains an obligation of the state to provide adequate and successful healthcare to every person lodged in jail.”

 The Delhi High Court decided on Monday that the right to grant bail on medical excuses under the PMLA is optional and must be employed prudently after establishing satisfaction that requisite conditions exist leading to the use of such a decision.

Facts of the Case

The court was considering a bail petition filed by Sanjay Jain, who was charged with money laundering. The standard bail plea was handled by his wife. During the usual bail hearing, Jain’s wife filed a declaration on May 22 asking for temporary relief on medicinal and humanitarian fronts for three months, claiming that his health was critical. According to the wife’s statement, the 57-year-old had several pre-existing conditions, including hypertension, depression and anxiety, diabetes, and damaged mitral valve prolapse. It was also reported that his health had deteriorated in jail and that he was unable to receive medical care.

While declining to grant Jain temporary release, the court did order the Director of AIIMS to promptly form a Medical Board of Doctors to evaluate Jain’s medical condition.

According to section 45 of the PMLA, not every condition enables a defendant to grant bail for medical reasons, and the term used in the provision’s first proviso is that a person can be freed on release if he is “sick” or “infirm.”

Courts Analysis and Decision

Merely, the petitioner’s health must take precedence, and it is his fundamental right to adequate and effective treatment while incarcerated. However, if specialized or sustained treatment and care is required due to the petitioner’s medical condition and is not possible while incarcerated, the petitioner will be eligible for the benefit of interim bail under the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, the court said. Justice Mahajan stated that appointments for Jain’s diagnostic procedures were booked roughly five months to one year later, indicating that government Hospitals are overcrowded and unable to handle the medical concerns he encountered while in jail.

Nevertheless, there is no medical consensus on record indicating how critical is the need for the applicant to undergo CT angioplasty for his heart disease and MRI LS spine and whether, as a result of the postponement of the said testing and subsequent delay in treatment, the petitioner’s life could be jeopardized,” it said. “In lieu of the conclusions of the experts, it is hard for this Court to conclude that there is a case for grant of interim bail on medical grounds,” the court added. “The Court can’t assume the role of a doctor and make its own assessment of the petitioner’s health on the medical grounds.”

The judge ordered the Jail Superintendent to turn over all of Jain’s medical records to the Medical Board of Doctors and allowed the wife to turn over pertinent medical data to the governing body with a duplicate to the Special Counsel for ED. The Jail Superintendent received further instructions to make sure that Jain appears before the Medical Board on June 7 at the date and place specified by the Board. “Upon review of medical documentation and testing of the applicant, the Medical Board will submit its report to this Court before or on 10.06.2023, the court ordered.”


Click here to review the judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Anushka Satwani




Under Article 21, the right to food includes the right to food that is hygienic: Gujarat High Court rejects an application to reopen the meat markets in Surat.

Patel Dharmeshbhai Naranbhai v. Dharmendrabhai Pravinbhai Fofani.

Date :  11/04/2023




In light of various writ petitions filed before the Supreme Court relating to illegal slaughter houses, their impact on the animals, public health and environment and for enforcement of various laws including food safety and standards laws, closure of illegal slaughter houses operating in contravention of the statutory provisions, the animal transport norms and for formation of State Level Committees to oversee the implementation of these and related laws, the Supreme Court passed various orders in the public interest litigation, and issued directions to Central Pollution Control Board to initiate action against all slaughter houses which are not meeting with the norms and complying with the abattoir rules.

According to the Supreme Court’s directives, unstamped meat stores and establishments that sold or slaughtered it without a licence were subject to closure by the authorities on the grounds that they were run in violation of numerous legal requirements. In light of the aforementioned facts, applications were submitted to the court asking for a ruling authorising the reopening of chicken meat markets in Surat.


Whether the closing of meat markets violates Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and amounts to a restriction on the freedom to free trade?


The Court cited the provisions of the Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006, and the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 (the “Food Act”), stating that meat is one of the foods covered by the Act and that “Meat and Meat Products” are the subject of Regulation 2.5 of the Food Safety and Standards Regulations, 2011. The rules stipulate that food business owners who manufacture, process, store, and sell meat and meat products must adhere to particular hygienic and sanitary procedures. Before being granted a licence to operate, the abattoir must first get a No Objection Certificate (‘NOC’) from the local authority.

According to the court, the applicants’ shops were shut down because they didn’t follow the rules of the applicable legislation, and permission to reopen the meat shops couldn’t be given because the shop owners continued to break the rules. The Court further stated that any basic right under Article 19(1) is subject to the reasonable limitations set forth in Subparagraphs (2) through (6). According to the statement, the provisions of the Food Act apply to the meat industry and meat shops. The regulatory and hygienic measures included in the said act for meat shops and slaughterhouses shall function as reasonable limitations on the freedom of the vendors of meat and slaughterhouse owners to conduct business.

The Court said that the freedom to trade or right to do business have to yield the public health norms and the restrictive compulsions needed to be enforced in larger public good. The right to free trade in food items like meat, or any such food must be sub-serving to public health and food safety requirements…. 

The Court also made reference to the consumer’s right to food safety, stating that this right is compatible with Article 21 of the Constitution just as the right to food is. The Court further declared that the State authorities must fulfil their commitment to assure such safe food by putting the food safety standards and other regulatory measures outlined in the various statutes into practise and enforcement. Therefore, it would be difficult to allow all the meat markets and slaughterhouses that have been shut down by the authorities due to their failure to adhere to the licencing and regulatory standards, food and safety requirements, and pollution control requirements to reopen on large grounds.

Thus, the Court dismissed the applications and observed that meat shop owners, meat vendors or slaughter house owners ensuring the compliance of regulatory norms should be permitted to reopen their shops and establishments and run their business…. 


click here to view judgement

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”