The Delhi High Court has clarified that the mere claim of being “sick and infirm” does not automatically entitle an accused to bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The judgment came in a case involving former Amtek Group chairperson Arvind Dham, who sought bail on medical grounds while facing allegations of a massive financial fraud.
Justice Ravinder Dudeja heard the bail application filed by Dham under the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA. This proviso relaxes the otherwise strict conditions for bail in cases where the accused is a minor, a woman, or is sick or infirm. Dham, aged 64, argued that his health conditions and advanced age made him eligible for bail under this exception. He contended that he was suffering from multiple ailments and could not be properly treated in custody.
The Enforcement Directorate opposed the bail plea, stressing that Dham was involved in a fraud of over ₹2,700 crore, perpetrated through the use of more than 500 shell companies. It was alleged that these entities were created to manipulate accounts, conceal assets, and defraud banks and financial institutions. The agency argued that the magnitude of the offence, coupled with the possibility of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses, made his release on bail highly detrimental to the ongoing proceedings.
In its ruling, the Court held that while the law does provide special consideration to those who are sick or infirm, such a status cannot be treated as a blanket ground for bail. The Court emphasized that jail authorities are bound to provide adequate medical care to inmates, including specialized treatment in government or private hospitals when necessary. It observed that the accused had access to such facilities and therefore could not claim that his health condition alone justified his release.
Justice Dudeja further noted that economic offences of this scale affect the financial health of the country and undermine public confidence in the system. Given the seriousness and complexity of the allegations, the Court stated that releasing the accused on bail solely on the ground of infirmity would compromise the administration of justice. The judgment made it clear that the legislative intent of the PMLA was to treat such offences with utmost gravity and to ensure stringent safeguards against premature release of accused persons.
The Court reiterated that the proviso in Section 45 is not meant to override the seriousness of economic crimes but to ensure humanitarian consideration in genuine cases where custodial treatment is demonstrably inadequate. It clarified that an accused must show, with credible medical evidence, that their condition is so severe that treatment within the prison system is impossible or grossly inadequate. In the absence of such proof, bail cannot be granted merely on the plea of being sick or infirm.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed Arvind Dham’s bail plea, holding that his health conditions could be adequately managed through proper treatment arranged by the prison authorities. The ruling thus reinforced the principle that while humanitarian concerns are respected under the law, they cannot be exploited to undermine the stringent framework designed to deal with money laundering and large-scale financial frauds.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.