High Court · 2025

Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rohit Tripathi learned counsel for the respondent Directorate of Enforcement. The applicant has been arraigned in ECIR/ALSZO/27/2021 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. An FIR bearing no.129 of 2020 under Sections 419, 420, 433, 434, 447, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act was lodged against M/s Vikas Constructions through its partner with the allegations that it had encroached on public property by falsifying the records. In the aforesaid case bearing no.129 of 2020 charge sheet was filed and the applicant had applied for anticipatory bail which was granted to him on 12.11.2020. Since the offences invoked in FIR no.129 of 2020 were scheduled offences under PMLA, 2002, hence, ECIR/ALSZO/27/2021 was lodged. It is alleged that the applicant is involved in money laundering, however, the aforesaid allegations were denied by the applicant and despite having cooperated in the investigation at all times in pursuance of the summons issued under Section 50(2)(3) of PMLA 2002 yet by falsely and wrongly implicating the applicant in the said matter, he was apprehended by the Prosecuting Agency on 07.11.2022. The applicant has specifically stated that since 22.07.2021 the applicant was detected with a terminal disease and he had to undergo surgery followed by chemo therapy and radiation which was completed some time in the month of October, 2021. While the applicant was in custody, once again the cancer has resurfaced and this time it is in his lungs and it requires constant medical treatment. In the aforesaid context the counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had also sought short term bail purely on medical grounds which was considered by this Court and by means of the order dated 27.09.2024 the applicant was granted short term bail. Since 27.09.2024 the applicant has been granted short term bail which was extended by the Court by means of the order dated 14.11.2024 and 09.01.2025. It is further stated that even though the applicant has once again filed an application seeking extension of short term bail dated 07.02.2025 yet the fact remains that the applicant is in constant supervision of his oncologist and is undergoing treatment for his cancer. It is further submitted that the applicant along with his application dated 07.02.2025 has brought on record the latest medical reports which also substantiate the fact that the applicant requires constant medical treatment and is under the active treatment of an oncologist and is also undergoing chemotherapy. It is further urged that this Court had also constituted a Medical Board at the King George's Medical University, Lucknow where the applicant was examined and his disease and line of treatment was confirmed. In the aforesaid circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that his regular bail application may be considered purely on medical ground as the disease of the applicant is progressing and he requires constant medical attention. It is urged that the application for extension of short term bail dated 07.02.2025 may be treated as an application for taking the documents on record and the applicant does not press his prayer for extension of short term bail rather the regular bail be considered. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to a decision of the Apex Court in Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani vs Directorate of Enforcement & Anr in S.L.P. (Crl) no.11376/2024 wherein the Apex Court even in cases under the PMLA have held that the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA specifically contemplates that a person who "is sick or infirm" may be released on bail. It is thus urged that the applicant who is undergoing treatment for serious illness and the disease has been confirmed and though necessary medical records have been produced before the Court which has not been disputed by the Prosecuting Agency and, moreover, the applicant was in jail since 07.11.2022 till he was released on short term bail. In the aforesaid circumstances, the regular bail application of the applicant may be considered purely on medical grounds. Sri Rohit Tripathi learned counsel for the Prosecuting Agency has submitted that since Sri Krishna learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the regular bail application may be considered only on the ground of medical condition of the applicant and as far as the disease is concerned and treatment is concerned that is not disputed. He also could not dispute the fact that the Apex Court in Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani vs Directorate of Enforcement & Anr (supra) has noticed that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA also contemplates a person who "is sick or infirm" and in such circumstances, he may be enlarged on bail. Sri Rohit Tripathi learned counsel for the Prosecuting Agency also could not dispute that there is no emergent requirement of the applicant for any interrogation or cooperation. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that his regular bail application may be considered on medical grounds and his application dated 07.02.2025 seeking extension of short term bail may not be considered rather the documents annexed with the said application be read and considered along with regular bail for medical purposes and in view of the abovementioned facts including the orders passed by this Court granting the short term bail to the applicant on medical grounds which has been extended from time to time and that the applicant is still under treatment, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant fulfills the threshold for being enlarged on bail on medical grounds. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on following conditions:- Let the applicant-Atif Raza involved in the above-mentioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall deposit his passport with the Investigating Officer / Intelligence Officer of DRI and if he is not possessing any passport he shall file an affidavit before the Investigating Officer mentioning clearly therein that he is not possessing any passport. (v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 12.2.2025 Harshita HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Heard Sri Pranjal Krishna learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rohit Tripathi learned counsel for the respondent Directorate of Enforcement. The applicant has been arraigned in ECIR/ALSZO/27/2021 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002. An FIR bearing no.129 of 2020 under Sections 419, 420, 433, 434, 447, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC read with Sections 3 and 4 Prevention of Damage of Public Property Act was lodged against M/s Vikas Constructions through its partner with the allegations that it had encroached on public property by falsifying the records. In the aforesaid case bearing no.129 of 2020 charge sheet was filed and the applicant had applied for anticipatory bail which was granted to him on 12.11.2020. Since the offences invoked in FIR no.129 of 2020 were scheduled offences under PMLA, 2002, hence, ECIR/ALSZO/27/2021 was lodged. It is alleged that the applicant is involved in money laundering, however, the aforesaid allegations were denied by the applicant and despite having cooperated in the investigation at all times in pursuance of the summons issued under Section 50(2)(3) of PMLA 2002 yet by falsely and wrongly implicating the applicant in the said matter, he was apprehended by the Prosecuting Agency on 07.11.2022. The applicant has specifically stated that since 22.07.2021 the applicant was detected with a terminal disease and he had to undergo surgery followed by chemo therapy and radiation which was completed some time in the month of October, 2021. While the applicant was in custody, once again the cancer has resurfaced and this time it is in his lungs and it requires constant medical treatment. In the aforesaid context the counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant had also sought short term bail purely on medical grounds which was considered by this Court and by means of the order dated 27.09.2024 the applicant was granted short term bail. Since 27.09.2024 the applicant has been granted short term bail which was extended by the Court by means of the order dated 14.11.2024 and 09.01.2025. It is further stated that even though the applicant has once again filed an application seeking extension of short term bail dated 07.02.2025 yet the fact remains that the applicant is in constant supervision of his oncologist and is undergoing treatment for his cancer. It is further submitted that the applicant along with his application dated 07.02.2025 has brought on record the latest medical reports which also substantiate the fact that the applicant requires constant medical treatment and is under the active treatment of an oncologist and is also undergoing chemotherapy. It is further urged that this Court had also constituted a Medical Board at the King George's Medical University, Lucknow where the applicant was examined and his disease and line of treatment was confirmed. In the aforesaid circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that his regular bail application may be considered purely on medical ground as the disease of the applicant is progressing and he requires constant medical attention. It is urged that the application for extension of short term bail dated 07.02.2025 may be treated as an application for taking the documents on record and the applicant does not press his prayer for extension of short term bail rather the regular bail be considered. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of the Court to a decision of the Apex Court in Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani vs Directorate of Enforcement & Anr in S.L.P. (Crl) no.11376/2024 wherein the Apex Court even in cases under the PMLA have held that the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA specifically contemplates that a person who "is sick or infirm" may be released on bail. It is thus urged that the applicant who is undergoing treatment for serious illness and the disease has been confirmed and though necessary medical records have been produced before the Court which has not been disputed by the Prosecuting Agency and, moreover, the applicant was in jail since 07.11.2022 till he was released on short term bail. In the aforesaid circumstances, the regular bail application of the applicant may be considered purely on medical grounds. Sri Rohit Tripathi learned counsel for the Prosecuting Agency has submitted that since Sri Krishna learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the regular bail application may be considered only on the ground of medical condition of the applicant and as far as the disease is concerned and treatment is concerned that is not disputed. He also could not dispute the fact that the Apex Court in Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani vs Directorate of Enforcement & Anr (supra) has noticed that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA also contemplates a person who "is sick or infirm" and in such circumstances, he may be enlarged on bail. Sri Rohit Tripathi learned counsel for the Prosecuting Agency also could not dispute that there is no emergent requirement of the applicant for any interrogation or cooperation. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that his regular bail application may be considered on medical grounds and his application dated 07.02.2025 seeking extension of short term bail may not be considered rather the documents annexed with the said application be read and considered along with regular bail for medical purposes and in view of the abovementioned facts including the orders passed by this Court granting the short term bail to the applicant on medical grounds which has been extended from time to time and that the applicant is still under treatment, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant fulfills the threshold for being enlarged on bail on medical grounds. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed on following conditions:- Let the applicant-Atif Raza involved in the above-mentioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. At the time of executing required sureties, the following conditions shall be imposed in the interest of justice:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall deposit his passport with the Investigating Officer / Intelligence Officer of DRI and if he is not possessing any passport he shall file an affidavit before the Investigating Officer mentioning clearly therein that he is not possessing any passport. (v) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Order Date :- 12.2.2025 Harshita HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench