All Kinds of Sickness Do Not Qualify — Calcutta High Court Grants Interim Bail to Accused Under PMLA Due to Incurable Neurodegenerative Illness

“Such Care and Assistance… Is Not Possible While He Is in Custody” —Calcutta High Court granting interim bail on medical and humanitarian grounds to a wheelchair-bound accused suffering from a progressive, incurable neurological condition. In doing so, the Court invoked the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, exempting him from the otherwise stringent bail restrictions applicable in money laundering offences.

Justice Suvra Ghosh held that “it is only when the jail authorities are unable to provide the required medical care and treatment to the accused that the accused may be released on bail on medical grounds,” thereby underlining the central principle guiding the Court’s leniency.

The petitioner, Subodh Kumar Goel, was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate from his residence in New Delhi on 16 May 2025, and brought to Kolkata on transit remand. He was produced before the Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta the next day and remanded to ED custody. The petitioner subsequently approached the High Court seeking bail, invoking the “sick and infirm” clause under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA.

The Court was informed that Goel had been suffering since 2018 from Spinocerebellar Ataxia Type 12, a rare and incurable genetic neurodegenerative disorder, which had rendered him wheelchair-bound and severely dependent. He also suffered from diabetes, hypertension, and recurrent syncope, and required constant and specialised medical care, which the petitioner argued could not be adequately provided within the prison system.

The core legal issue revolved around the applicability of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, which states that “a person who is… sick or infirm… may be released on bail, if the special court so directs.” The petitioner’s counsel argued that the proviso squarely applied to Goel, given the seriousness of his condition and the findings of a medical board constituted by the State.

The Enforcement Directorate, on the other hand, argued that bail ought not to be granted. It asserted that the petitioner was already receiving the “best possible care” at his chosen facility, and further claimed that the illness, while incurable, was not life-threatening. The ED also raised concerns about the risk of the petitioner influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, stating: “He is well placed in society and is an influential person.”

Justice Suvra Ghosh began by reiterating the language of Section 45(1) of the PMLA and its proviso, observing:

“A person who is sick or infirm is exempted from satisfying the rigours of Section 45(1) of the Act.”

However, the Court added a critical caveat:

“True, all kinds of sickness or infirmity are not entitled to exemption under the proviso… The seriousness and magnitude of such sickness and infirmity need to be ascertained.”

In this case, the Court noted that the petitioner had been examined by a five-member medical board from IPGMER-SSKM Hospital and Bangur Institute of Neurosciences, which found that:

“Mr. Goel has been suffering from progressive neurological disease called Spinocerebellar Ataxia (SCA 12) with Ataxia, Parkinsonism and cognitive impairment for which he has severe physical and cognitive disabilities.”

The board further observed that he “requires assistance for his ambulation and all basic activities” and that “as the neurodegenerative disease progressively worsens and does not have a cure, he would continue to remain disabled.”

Relying on these findings, the Court held:

“The report demonstrates in no uncertain terms that the petitioner is extremely sick and infirm… Such care and assistance, in my considered view, is not possible while he is in custody.”

Drawing from precedents including Naresh Goyal v. ED and Shashi Bala v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Court underlined the difference between access to healthcare in jail versus at home, stating:

“There is a qualitative difference between the treatment which a person gets as an undertrial prisoner and as a citizen under no restraint.”

In rejecting the ED’s objections, the Court also clarified the impact of Section 45(2) of the PMLA, observing:

“Since the limitation specified in sub-section (1) is not applicable to a person governed by the proviso… the limitations in addition thereto are also not applicable.”

The Court distinguished the authorities cited by ED on the ground that those cases involved conditions which were not severe, not degenerative, or already under control. By contrast, Goel's condition was incurable, worsening, and severely disabling.

Granting interim bail till 15th November 2025, the Court ordered Goel’s release on a personal bond of ₹10,000 with two sureties. But the relief came with strict conditions. The Court directed:

“He shall remain within the jurisdiction of the learned trial court and shall provide the address where he shall presently reside… He shall not tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses in any manner whatsoever.”

Further, the Court allowed the accused to appear virtually or through his counsel if his health did not permit physical appearance. Any violation of these conditions would empower the trial court to cancel the bail, with further reference to the High Court.

With this decision, the Calcutta High Court has underscored the constitutional balance between individual dignity and criminal prosecution, especially in the context of severe health conditions. While affirming that not every ailment justifies bail, the Court made clear that when custodial care falls short, even the stringent regime under the PMLA must yield.

“The petitioner is suffering from serious complications which are difficult to address in jail. He is entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Act of 2002. Without going into the merits… he may be released on interim bail solely on the medical and humanitarian ground.”

Date of Decision: 22nd August 2025