The Bombay High Court has granted medical bail to businessman Ushik Mahesh Gala, who is facing proceedings in a money laundering case involving allegations of proceeds of crime of approximately ₹137 crore. The Court held that there is a “qualitative difference” between the medical treatment available to an undertrial prisoner confined in a jail barrack or prison hospital and the treatment available to a citizen who is not under restraint. Justice Milind Jadhav considered the medical condition of Gala and found that the circumstances justified his release on medical grounds under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court found that his medical reports demonstrated the need for continued rehabilitation, monitoring and specialised care in circumstances where returning him to custody could adversely affect his health.
Gala had been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the money laundering proceedings. His medical condition became central to his request for bail because he had undergone multiple major surgical procedures over a relatively short period. The Court noted that he had undergone three surgeries since 2022. These included bariatric surgery, removal of the gall bladder and, subsequently, surgery for repair of an abdominal hernia. The sequence of medical procedures was considered by the Court while assessing whether the facilities available in custody would be sufficient for his continued recovery and rehabilitation.
The first major surgery referred to by the Court was performed in November 2022, when Gala underwent Sleeve Gastrectomy and Cholecystectomy. The bariatric procedure was undertaken because he was suffering from morbid obesity, while the gall bladder was also removed during the procedure. According to the medical history placed before the Court, Gala subsequently developed complications associated with the bariatric surgery. These complications ultimately required another surgical intervention involving removal of the gall bladder.
The gall bladder removal surgery was performed in February 2026. The Court noted that the complications arising after the bariatric surgery were followed by further health problems. Despite the earlier surgical intervention, Gala continued to suffer from obesity. The Court recorded that his persistent obesity subsequently contributed to the development of an abdominal hernia. This condition required another operation, which was performed in July 2026.
The abdominal hernia repair surgery was performed on July 10, 2026. Gala was thereafter under medical supervision and rehabilitation. He was discharged from Breach Candy Hospital in Mumbai on July 13, 2026. The Enforcement Directorate relied upon his discharge from the hospital to contend that he was in post-surgery rehabilitation and that the medical facilities available through government and State-run hospitals and prison medical facilities would be sufficient for his continued recovery.
The High Court did not accept the Enforcement Directorate's contention that Gala's discharge from the hospital meant that he was fit to return to prison. Justice Jadhav held that the fact of discharge could not, by itself, establish that the applicant had completely recovered or that his medical needs could be adequately addressed in custody. The Court examined the medical material and discharge summary and found that the applicant's sickness, infirmity and health conditions remained serious.
The Court observed that directing Gala to return to custody or even to the prison hospital after his discharge would be incompatible with his medical condition. Justice Jadhav noted that such a course could expose him to the risk of deterioration of his health. The Court also took note of the conditions in jails and the congestion prevailing in them while assessing whether the applicant could safely continue his post-operative rehabilitation within the prison system.
The medical reports were therefore given considerable importance by the Court. Justice Jadhav found that the material placed before the Court prima facie demonstrated that Gala required substantial post-rehabilitation care and monitoring. The Court specifically referred to the need to monitor possible side effects and symptoms that could arise following the surgeries. In the Court's assessment, the level of care and monitoring required could appropriately be provided if Gala received treatment at a hospital of his choice and remained away from an environment where infection-related risks could arise.
The Court's observations concerning the difference between treatment available to prisoners and free citizens formed an important part of the reasoning. Justice Jadhav held that there was a qualitative difference between the treatment received by an undertrial prisoner while confined to a jail barrack or prison hospital and the treatment received by a citizen who was not under any restraint. The distinction was considered relevant because Gala's medical condition required continued care and monitoring following several surgeries.
The Court also considered the nature of Gala's obesity. The Enforcement Directorate argued that his medical condition had to be viewed in the context of post-surgery rehabilitation and that State-run medical institutions and prison hospitals could provide adequate facilities for his recovery. The Court rejected this submission after examining the medical record and the sequence of complications suffered by Gala. It held that it would be erroneous to conclude that Gala had fully recovered and was merely suffering from obesity.
Justice Jadhav specifically observed that obesity in Gala's case could not be treated merely as a disease or life condition having no further significance. According to the Court, his morbid obesity had operated as an underlying cause for further medical complications and had affected his overall health and lifestyle. The Court noted that the medical history demonstrated that the condition had in fact contributed to additional complications requiring surgical treatment.
The Court therefore considered appropriate rehabilitation and medical care to be necessary if Gala was to remain in a position to stand trial. The purpose of medical bail, in the circumstances considered by the Court, was connected with ensuring that the applicant received the medical attention required for his continuing health conditions. The Court found that the medical circumstances were sufficiently strong to justify granting bail notwithstanding the money laundering allegations against him.
The proceedings were considered in the context of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Section 45 ordinarily imposes conditions governing the grant of bail in cases involving offences under the PMLA. However, the proviso to Section 45(1) provides an exception in certain circumstances, including where the accused is sick or infirm. The High Court considered Gala's medical condition within this statutory framework and found that the circumstances justified the grant of medical bail under the proviso.
The Court's assessment was based upon the cumulative effect of Gala's medical history. He had undergone bariatric surgery, later required gall bladder removal, and subsequently underwent abdominal hernia repair. The Court also considered the continuing rehabilitation required after the latest surgery. The sequence of surgeries, the applicant's morbid obesity and the need for continuing monitoring were considered together rather than treating the latest hospital discharge as proof of complete recovery.
The Court noted that Gala had undergone three surgeries over a period of less than four years. According to the medical material, his condition required post-operative care and observation for potential complications. Justice Jadhav held that the applicant required adequate rehabilitation and monitoring of his existing and continuing medical conditions. The Court found that these circumstances supported his request for medical bail.
The Enforcement Directorate's argument was that the applicant could receive appropriate treatment through government and State-run medical facilities while remaining in custody. The agency's position was based on the fact that Gala was already in the post-surgery rehabilitation stage. The High Court, however, found that the medical material did not support the conclusion that he had recovered sufficiently to return to prison. The Court therefore did not accept that the availability of medical facilities within the State system eliminated the need for medical bail.
Justice Jadhav further considered the practical conditions of imprisonment while deciding whether Gala's medical needs could be adequately addressed in custody. The Court referred to the congestion in jails and observed that the applicant's condition required a degree of care and monitoring that made continued confinement medically inappropriate. The Court's assessment was that the risk of deterioration could not be ignored merely because the applicant had been discharged from the hospital following surgery.
The Court consequently found that Gala had established a strong case for medical bail. The medical reports and discharge summary were considered sufficient to demonstrate the seriousness of his health conditions. The Court concluded that requiring him to return to custody after his discharge would create a risk to his health and would not be compatible with the continuing medical care required following his surgeries.
The Court also emphasised that the applicant's health condition had to be assessed in its entirety. His medical circumstances were not limited to obesity. His condition had resulted in or been accompanied by several medical complications, each of which had required surgical intervention. The Court therefore considered the cumulative medical history rather than treating any single diagnosis or hospital discharge as determinative of his fitness for imprisonment.
The High Court ultimately granted Gala bail on medical grounds. The order was passed after considering the seriousness of his medical condition, his history of multiple surgeries, the need for post-surgical rehabilitation and the difference between medical care available to an undertrial prisoner and a person receiving treatment outside custody. The Court found that the circumstances fell within the exception contained in the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA.
The case was titled Ushik Mahesh Gala v. Directorate of Enforcement and concerned Bail Application No. 1836 of 2026. Justice Milind Jadhav passed the order. Gala was represented by Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani along with Advocates Rishi Bhutan, Rashmin Khandekar, Pushkraj Deshpande, Rohan Marathe and Bhumika Khandelwal, instructed by ALMT Legal. The Enforcement Directorate was represented by Advocates Pavan Patil, Shubham Sarah, Tanmay Deshmukh and Soham Badole, while Additional Public Prosecutor Gauri Rao represented the State.
The Court's decision was therefore based principally on the applicant's medical condition and the treatment and rehabilitation required after multiple surgeries. The Court found that the medical circumstances demonstrated a need for care that could not adequately be addressed merely by directing the applicant back to prison or the prison hospital. It accordingly granted medical bail, holding that the serious nature of the applicant's sickness and infirmity, together with the need for continued medical supervision and rehabilitation, justified relief under the applicable provision of the PMLA.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.