The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation and application of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the constitutional validity of its provisions, particularly in the context of bail applications.

JUDGMENT

Shivakant Prasad, J. - Petitioner'S prayer for bail in connection with ML Case No. 03 of 2015 under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has been turned down by the learned Judge Special Court of PMLA, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta vide order dated 28th August, 2019.

2. Being aggrieved the petitioner has moved this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for his release on bail on any condition.

3. Earlier prayer for bail was turned down by this Hon'ble Court in CRM No. 2033 of 2018 by order dated 28th September, 2018.

4. The ground on which the petitioner has renewed his prayer for release on bail is that he has been diagnosed as carcinoma patient and was having an abnormal growth in his left vocal cord during April, 2011 and the operation took place at Woodland Hospital, kolkata on 29th April, 2011 to remove the squamous carcinoma cell. So obviously his diagnosis as a patient of carcinoma which he had developed was prior to the rejection of his bail prayer vide order dated 28th September, 2018 of this Court. The petitioner has visited TATA Memorial Hospital, Mumbai for further check-up and various tests were held at Bellevue clinic, Kolkata during April, 2011. Then he was referred for chemotherapy at Amri Hospital, Kolkata. The accused was again referred to radiotherapy OPD at SSKM Hospital on 22.11.2016. Thus it is pointed out that the petitioner is suffering from different ailments and he has to take several medicines in a day but he has to take medicines supplied from the correctional home, which virtually deteriorated his physical condition.

5. It is also submitted that the petitioner is suffering from Diabetes Mellitus and hypertension with IHD for which he was also admitted in PCH Hospital since 8th February, 2017 and has acute pain in his hip joint and lower leg and suffering from degenerative disc disease with secondary spinal canal steno sis at L4-L5. The petitioner is also said to have suffered from diseases of urinary organs and was referred to Institute of Psychiatry as he was suffering from depressive episodes with co-morbid physical illness. Thus, it is argued that the accused petitioner requires specialized treatment which is not possible at the correctional home due to infrastructural deficiencies and the movement of the petitioner on every occasion on emergency basis to super speciality hospitals is also not possible because of procedural complications involved therein.

6. It is pointed out that the petitioner has not received necessary medical assistance as well as treatment as it was not possible to provide necessary logistic supports or the police escort for moving him to the hospitals. It is submitted that the learned Special Judge while rejecting the bail prayer of the accused petitioner gave undue stress to the cryptic representations of the facts levelling allegations by the prosecution. The learned Judge ought to have considered the prayer for bail of the petitioner on legal ground as provided in the proviso clause of Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. It is also pointed out that there are nine accused persons in connection with the case as per the petition of complaints and accused persons, namely, Amit Banerjee @ Raja, Sudhir Shaw and B.K. Mallick are already on bail and so far as the involvement and designation of the said three persons are concerned, they are alleged to be Secretary of Rose Valley Field Employee Union, A.G.M. Accounts of Rose Valley Group of Companies and Ex-Company Secretary/present advisor of Rose Valley Real Estates Constructions Limited respectively. The petitioner although represented to be as one of the Debenture Trustees of the Accused Company but true and proper appreciation of the materials on record as well as the statement recorded under Section 50 of the said Act would make it palpably clear that the said three accused persons who are enjoying liberty, were thickly knit together and were in the