Delhi High Court: In an application filed by businessman Amit Katyal, seeking interim bail on medical grounds, Vikas Mahajan, J., opined that in the absence of a medical expert, the Court could not assume the role of an expert and make its own assessment in case of grant of interim bail on medical grounds. However, on humanitarian grounds, the Court directed the Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (‘AIIMS’) to constitute a medical board to evaluate the medical condition of Amit Katyal.
Background
Petitioner, Amit Katyal filed for interim bail citing serious health issues that required specialized medical care. He submitted that he had undergone bariatric surgery at Medanta Hospital in April 2024 and was suffering from multiple health conditions, including coronary artery disease, mellitus, obstructive sleep apnea, diabetes, hepatomegaly, and syncope.
Previously, Amit Katyal was granted interim bail from 06-02-2024 to 01-05-2024, for medical treatment. After surrendering on 01-05-2024, his health purportedly deteriorated, leading to the current application for bail on humanitarian and medical grounds.
Contentions of Petitioner
It was argued by Amit Katyal that his health had significantly worsened and that the necessary medical treatment and diet could not be provided in jail. Further, a medical status report was cited, which detailed Amit Katyal’s complaints of severe pain, vomiting, and other symptoms indicative of serious health issues. These conditions necessitated a specialized diet and medical care that the jail could not adequately provide.
It was argued that the health condition of an individual is of paramount importance and every person has a right to get himself adequately and effectively treated especially when the individual is suffering from serious co-morbidities leaving him in a compromised position.
It was further emphasized that the petitioner had been previously granted interim bail on similar grounds due to his precarious health condition, which had not improved significantly, thus justifying a renewed request for bail.
Contentions of the Enforcement Directorate (ED)
It was argued by the ED that Amit Katyal’s medical conditions were not as severe as claimed and that he was receiving adequate medical attention in jail. The jail authorities were providing necessary treatments and managing his health conditions as per the available medical facilities. It was further submitted that the complaints listed in the medical status report were primarily based on Amit Katyal’s subjective statements and did not conclusively prove that his ailments required specialized treatment unavailable in jail.
It was argued by the ED that that the Special Judge had previously ordered Amit Katyal to surrender after determining that he had recovered sufficiently from his surgery and that his health could be managed within the jail. The ED also pointed out that Amit Katyal did not challenge the order dated 30-04-2024, which directed his surrender and noted his recovery, thereby implying his acceptance of the Court’s assessment of his health status at that time.
Decision and Analysis
Upon hearing the submissions of both parties, the Court assessed the legal provisions under Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2005 (‘PMLA’), particularly focusing on the proviso that allows for bail on medical grounds and acknowledged the need for a judicious exercise of discretion when granting bail on medical grounds, guided by the principles established in previous cases.
The Court reviewed the detailed medical status report provided by the jail authorities, which documented Amit Katyal’s complaints but decided that it lacked a clear expert diagnosis that could substantiate the severity of his condition, which would warrant granting Amit Katyal bail.
The Court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish that Amit Katyal’s medical conditions were so severe that it warranted interim bail. The Court noted that the petitioner had previously complied with a Court order to surrender, which indicated his recovery and ability to manage his health within the jail environment.
The Court referred to Sanjay Jain v. Enforcement Directorate, , wherein it was held that while deciding an application seeking interim bail on medical grounds, the right of health of an individual being a facet of right to life under Article 21 cannot be abridged without due process of law in a mechanical manner. The Court further held that the right of an individual to be released on an interim bail arises when specialized treatment and care is necessary and the same cannot be provided by the Jail Authorities.
The Court was of the opinion that in the absence of a detailed medical report, it is difficult for this Court to conclude as to whether the present case is fit for grant of interim bail to Amit Katyal, however, on humanitarian grounds the Court decided that the plea of the petitioner could not simply be brushed aside as the evidence showed that he was heart patient and had indeed undergone bariatric surgery recently. The Court, therefore, issued the following directions to constitute a medical board to evaluate the medical condition of Amit Katyal:
(i) The Director, AIIMS was directed to immediately constitute a Medical Board of Doctors from minimum three different specialties, regarding the nature of ailments the petitioner was stated to be suffering from, for evaluating the medical condition of the petitioner.
(ii) The Jail Superintendent was directed to furnish all medical records of the petitioner to the Medical Board of Doctors so constituted on or before 11-06-2024. The Court further directed that the pairokar of the petitioner was at liberty to furnish the relevant medical records of the petitioner to the Board, with a copy to the Special Counsel for the ED.
(iii) The Jail Superintendent was further directed to ensure that the petitioner was presented before the Medical Board on 11-06-2024 at the time and place as would be indicated by the Board, and if considered necessary by the Medical Board, the petitioner may be admitted in AIIMS for evaluation for a period deemed fit.
(iv) Upon evaluation of medical records and examination of the petitioner, the Medical Board was directed to furnish its report to the Court, on or before 14-06-2024.
(v) It was further directed by the Court that the report was to indicate specifically whether any single ailment of the petitioner or all the ailments taken together, warrant specialized or more sustained treatment, personal care and special diet, which could not be provided in the primary healthcare facility of the Jail.
The matter has been listed before the vacation bench on 17-06-2024.
[Amit Katyal v. Enforcement Directorate, Bail Appln. 2024 of 2024, Decided on 07-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocates for the Petitioner: Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Adv., Bina Gupta, Gurpreet Singh, Bakul Jain, Vinayak Gupta, Jatin Sethi, Sheena Taqui, Akansha Saini, Rupali Samuel, Advocates
Advocates for the Respondent: Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel, Vivek Gurnani, Advocate
The post appeared first on .