76-year-old PMLA undertrial granted interim bail after over five years in custody on medical and prolonged incarceration grounds

The petitioner, aged 76 years, was in custody in ECIR No. 02/JLZO/2013 dated 25 March 2013, registered by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

The underlying allegations concerned the smuggling of 925 kg of ketamine to China and one tonne of pseudoephedrine to Canada, along with the recovery of additional contraband in connected proceedings.

The petitioner sought interim bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, restricting his submissions to medical grounds and prolonged pre-trial custody.

The petitioner asserted that he suffered from severe spinal ailments, had undergone open spinal surgery, required continuing specialised medical care, and was unable to attend to his personal needs.

The Enforcement Directorate opposed bail, contending that the petitioner had previously evaded summons, was a flight risk, and that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA had not been satisfied.

The custody certificate dated 17 August 2026 showed that the petitioner had undergone 5 years, 1 month and 12 days of custody in the present case.

Whether the petitioner, being 76 years old and suffering from serious and debilitating medical conditions, was entitled to interim bail on medical grounds notwithstanding the restrictions under Section 45 of the PMLA?

Whether the petitioner’s prolonged incarceration of more than five years, coupled with the uncertain progress of the proceedings, justified interim bail on the ground of violation of the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21?

Whether interim bail could be granted without expressing any opinion on the merits of the money-laundering allegations?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, and considered the special bail restrictions under Section 45 of the PMLA, including the statutory exception applicable to a person who is “sick or infirm”.

It relied on Gautam Kundu v. Manoj Kumar, which recognises the overriding effect of Section 45 of the PMLA but also acknowledges the statutory exception for a sick or infirm accused.

The Court further applied the constitutional principles under Article 21 that personal liberty, the right to life, and the right to a speedy trial cannot be defeated solely by the seriousness of the allegations or by restrictive bail provisions where continued incarceration becomes unjustified.

Relying on Tulsi Ram Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra, Sanket Balubhai Patel v. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bachhu Yadav v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court recognised that advanced age, serious illness, prolonged detention, delay in trial, and the cumulative effect of these circumstances may justify interim or regular bail even in serious economic or special-statute offences.

The Court found that the petitioner’s medical condition was not specifically denied by the Enforcement Directorate; instead, the opposition primarily addressed the gravity of the offence, earlier rejection of bail on merits, and alleged flight risk.

Given the petitioner’s age of 76 years, spinal ailments, prior surgery, continuing need for treatment, and inability to manage his personal needs, the Court held that incarceration had to be assessed through the constitutional lens of Article 21.

It observed that prison treatment could not become a mere formality where an elderly and medically infirm inmate required specialised and periodic care, and that the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA could not operate as an absolute bar in such circumstances.

The Court additionally considered the petitioner’s custody of over five years.

It held that the seriousness of the underlying narcotics allegations or the money-laundering accusation could not, by itself, justify indefinite pre-trial detention when the trial had not concluded.

The prolonged custody, read cumulatively with the petitioner’s age and medical condition, entitled him to interim bail without any determination on the merits of the prosecution case.

Without commenting on the merits, the Court granted the petitioner interim bail from 11 September 2026 to 21 December 2026, with liberty to seek extension if his health did not improve.

Release was subject to furnishing bail bonds of ₹1,00,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the competent trial or magistrate court.

If the bonds were not furnished within ten days, the petitioner could seek reduction or waiver of the surety requirement.

The order was confined to the ECIR in question and did not operate as blanket bail in any other matter.

The petitioner was directed to surrender before the prison from which he was released by 11:00 a.m. on 22 December 2026.