Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(SC) 2794
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
RAMESH CHANDRA – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – Respondent
/ 0
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vishal Gosain, Adv.
Mr. Anuroop Chakravarti, Adv.
Mr. Vidhi Thakker, Adv.
Mr. Pravir Singh, Adv.
Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR
Mr. Vishal Banshal, Adv.
Ms. Shrika Gautam, Adv.
The court should consider the medical condition of an accused when deciding whether to grant bail.
Headnote:
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an 86-year-old man, was arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and granted interim medical bail due to his medical ailments. The High Court later ordered him to surrender while deferring his regular bail application.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the petitioner is an old man suffering from cognitive decline and other ailments and is susceptible to fall.
Issues: Whether the court should have ordered the petitioner to surrender while deferring consideration of the regular bail to a later date.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in the circumstances of the case, the petitioner should not have been ordered to surrender while deferring consideration of the regular bail to a later date.
Final Decision: The court stayed the direction to surrender until the next date.
Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
2. The counsel would point out that the petitioner is an 86 year old aged man who was taken into custody on 04.10.2021 under the Provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. He applied for bail and the High Court on 28.07.2022, considering the medical ailment of the petitioner granted, him interim medical bail. The extension of medical bail was granted thereafter on various dates, on the basis of the medical reports.
Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2024.03.19 15:48:07 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified
3.
- However, under the impugned order dated 15.03.2024, the
petitioner was asked to surrender while his regular bail
- application is deferred for consideration on 15.04.2024. The Senior
Counsel would read Paragraph 8 of the impugned order to point out that
the petitioner is an old man suffering from cognitive decline and other
ailments and is susceptible to fall. The submission is, in these
circumstances, the Court should not have ordered the petitioner to
surrender while deferring consideration of the regular bail to a later
date. Issue notice, returnable in two weeks.
Dasti notice on the
4.
respondent through the Central Agency Section.
5. The defects pointed out by the Registry should immediately be cured.
6. In the meantime, the direction to surrender is stayed, until the next date.
