Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

High Court of Delhi Grants Interim Bail on Medical Grounds under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2005

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant decision, the High Court of Delhi has granted interim bail on medical grounds to an undertrial prisoner under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2005 (PMLA). The court emphasized the importance of protecting the fundamental right to health and providing adequate medical treatment to prisoners, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The case pertained to a petitioner who sought interim bail on medical grounds, citing various ailments and the need for specialized treatment that could not be provided within the confines of the jail. The court noted that while not every ailment warrants bail, the medical condition of the petitioner should be given primacy, and if specialized or sustained treatment is necessary, interim bail may be granted.

To assess the petitioner's medical condition and urgency for specialized treatment, the court constituted a medical board consisting of experts from the prestigious All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). The medical board was directed to evaluate the petitioner's condition, including the need for diagnostic procedures and the potential risks to the petitioner's life due to delays in treatment. The board's report is expected to provide crucial insights into the petitioner's medical requirements and guide the court's decision on granting interim bail.

The court highlighted the obligation of the state to provide adequate and effective medical treatment to all individuals in custody, whether under trial or convicts. It relied on previous Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the preservation of life as paramount and recognizing the right to health as an important facet of Article 21 of the Constitution.

Date of Decision : 05.06.2023

SANJAY JAIN vs  ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE 

Latest Legal News