'Judges Must Have Spine To Do Justice': P&H High Court Grants Interim Bail To 76-Year-Old PMLA Accused Citing Ill-Health, Prolong Custody

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted interim bail on medical grounds to a 76-year-old accused in a money laundering case, holding that before rejecting a bail application of a person above 75 years of age with health issues, a judge "must have the spine to do justice" and examine such pleas with utmost sympathy and concern.

Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Harmeet Singh Deol said, "Unhealthy old age is a curse. It is inhumane to deny bail to middle-old people, or to those who are so sick that it is better for them to receive treatment outside prison walls; subject to the exception like the inmate is a recidivist who refuses to mend their ways, or is at flight risk, or that the criminal is of extreme perversity, or that the crime is so heinous or so cruel, that releasing such person on bail would be more disastrous to the society. Denying bail in such cases can be unkind and goes against the conscience of the Court."

Speaking for the bench, Justice Chitkara added, "Thus, whenever a person above 75 years of age with health issues is in custody, the concerned Judge must have the spine to do justice and examine the health and old age related issues with utmost sympathy and concern, and before rejecting the bail application of a person above 75 years of age, the Court must document the reasons for the same."

The petitioner was in custody in connection with ECIR registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, arising from an underlying FIR alleging smuggling of 925 kg of ketamine to China and one ton of pseudoephedrine to Canada, along with recovery of 10 kg of pseudoephedrine and 500 grams of intoxicating powder.

This was his second application before the High Court, with counsel confining submissions strictly to medical grounds and reserving the right to separately argue bail on merits and prolonged custody.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 76-year-old petitioner suffered from multiple severe, debilitating ailments, including having undergone open spinal surgery, requiring constant specialized care not possible in jail, that he was not a flight risk since all documentary evidence already lay with the ED, and offered to accept stringent conditions including automatic revocability of bail on commission of specified serious offences.

The ED opposed bail, citing the petitioner's alleged evasion of summons since 2016 before his eventual arrest, his alleged use of his absconding son's name to purchase properties, and his prior convictions in two other FIRs (12 years and 4 years respectively) plus a completed sentence under the Prisons Act.

The ED's reply, while nominally addressing medical grounds, stated the petitioner's spinal surgery and care had already been managed by jail authorities and that he could be shifted to government hospitals if needed, and separately argued a successive bail application was not maintainable.

The Court noted that the ED's reply, though meant to address medical grounds, focused predominantly on merits and the gravity of the offence, without specifically denying the petitioner's medical condition, and clarified it was confining its consideration strictly to medical grounds and prolonged custody, not merits.

Analysing Supreme Court cases on medical/compassionate bail, including Tulsi Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. (interim bail for cancer treatment despite life sentence), Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra (2024) (age and ailments combined with delay justifying bail), Sanket Balubhai Patel v. DRI (2025), and Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of U.P. (2024) on the right to speedy trial under Article 21,  the Court articulated the underlying philosophy of incarceration and its limits for the elderly and infirm.

On the interplay between PMLA's stringent twin bail conditions under Section 45 and medical/old-age considerations, the Court held that while Gautam Kundu v. Manoj Kumar (2015) confirms Section 45's overriding effect, the proviso itself carves out an exception for the sick and infirm, and held:

"The rigors of section 45 under PMLA cannot be a hindrance if someone is medically so unfit that the treatment inside the closed walls of the prison becomes a mere formality. Accordingly, denying bail would violate such a person's right to life, which can be taken only by due process of law and is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

On prolonged custody, the Court noted the petitioner had already spent over five years in custody in the present case, and held that the ED's own delay or inefficiency in concluding the money-laundering trial, distinct from the underlying NDPS offence, could not justify continued incarceration: "it would not mean that when the trial is not being concluded for such a long time, the person should still be kept in custody because of the inability and the inefficiency of the Enforcement Directorate to recover the money, or furthermore for the loopholes in the statute itself."

Without commenting on the merits of the case, and considering the petitioner's age (76 years), medical condition, and over five years of custody, the Court granted interim bail from 11.09.2026 to 21.12.2026, with liberty to seek extension if his health did not improve, subject to furnishing bail bonds of ₹1,00,000 with one surety of like amount to the trial court's satisfaction.

Directing the petitioner to surrender, the Court clarified its order was not a blanket precedent for any other matter and would have no bearing on the merits of the case or on any co-accused.

Mr. Tanheer Singh Bariana, Advocate and Mr. Jangveer Singh Bariana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with Mr. Akash Vashisth, Advocate for the respondent-E.D.

Title: Davinder Singh Nirwal @ Dev  v. Directorate of Enforcement

Click here to read order