ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

ECIR No. 02/JLZO/2013

Dated 25.03.2013

Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib

Sections Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

1. The petitioner, who is in custody in the above-captioned ECIR, came up before this Court for the second time under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS], seeking interim bail on medical grounds.

2. The petitioner’s Counsel confines his submissions to medical grounds, reserving the right to file for bail on the merits and on prolonged pre-trial custody if the medical bail is either not extended or denied.

3. The petitioner's counsel seeks interim bail on medical grounds and submits that the petitioner, aged 76 years, is suffering from medical issues and cannot even take care of his personal needs and any further pre-trial incarceration would cause irreversible injustice to the petitioner and his family. Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, states that the petitioner is not a flight risk and that all the documentary evidence is already in the possession of the Enforcement Directorate; as such, there is no reason to deny bail to the petitioner, and if denied, the petitioner's deteriorating medical condition would have an irreversible impact on his life if he survives.

4. The petitioner's counsel further states, on instruction, that the petitioner would have no objection whatsoever to any stringent conditions that this Court may impose, including that, if the petitioner repeats the offense, commits any non-bailable offense that provides for a sentence of imprisonment for more than seven years, commits any offense under the NDPS Act where the quantity involved is more than half of the intermediate or commercial quantity, or violates S. 19, 24, or 27-A of the NDPS Act, the State may file an application to revoke this bail before the concerned Special Judge or Sessions Court having jurisdiction over this FIR, which shall have the authority to cancel this bail and may do so at its discretion, to which the petitioner shall have no objection.

5. The ED’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the replies and previous conduct, which was that the petitioner was initially summoned, but he tried to evade the summons from 2016. He was arrested with great difficulty, and if released on bail, he would be a flight risk.

6. Counsel for the ED submits that the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA must be satisfied before bail is granted, and they have not been explained in this matter. It is alleged that the petitioner has purchased a large number of properties in India in the name of his son, Rao Bahadur Nirwal, who is also an accused but is absconding. The other reason to oppose bail is that the petitioner is already convicted in FIR No. 1 dated 17.06.2018 and sentenced to 12 years. He was convicted in FIR No. 41 dated 07.12.2013 and sentenced to 04 years, and in FIR No. 214 of 2018 under the Prisons Act, he has already completed his sentence.

7. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 45 was initially registered on March 3, 2013, at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, read with offenses under the IPC and the Arms Act. The allegations against the petitioner are of smuggling 925 kg of ketamine drug to China and one ton of pseudoephedrine to Canada. The police had also seized 10 kilograms of pseudoephedrine and 500 grams of intoxicating powder from the petitioner, and as such, FIR No. 241 of 2013 was also registered against him at Police Station Patiala.

8. The Assistant Director, Director of Enforcement, has filed a reply affidavit dated 07.06.2026. The Enforcement Directorate is opposing the bail even on medical grounds by stating that the petitioner is in judicial custody and all his medical care, including spinal surgery, has been taken care of by the jail authorities, and he can be shifted to government hospitals, and there is no need to grant interim b