Punjab and Haryana High Court grants medical bail to 76-year-old PMLA accused

'Unhealthy Old Age is a Curse': Judges Must Have Spine to Do Justice

In a significant ruling that balances the stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) with fundamental human rights, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted interim medical bail to a 76-year-old accused, Davinder Singh Nirwal @ Dev, who has been in custody for over five years in connection with a money laundering case arising from a massive drug smuggling operation.

The Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Harmeet Singh Deol minced no words in emphasizing the duty of courts when dealing with elderly and infirm prisoners. "Unhealthy old age is a curse. It is inhumane to deny bail to middle-old people, or to those who are so sick that it is better for them to receive treatment outside prison walls," the Court observed, adding that "whenever a person above 75 years of age with health issues is in custody, the concerned Judge must have the spine to do justice and examine the health and old age related issues with utmost sympathy and concern."

Background: The Allegations and the Medical Crisis

The petitioner was arrested under the PMLA based on ECIR No. 02/JLZO/2013, stemming from an initial FIR under the NDPS Act. The allegations are staggering: smuggling 925 kg of ketamine to China and one ton of pseudoephedrine to Canada, along with the seizure of 10 kg of pseudoephedrine and 500 grams of intoxicating powder from the petitioner. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has also alleged that the petitioner purchased properties in India in the name of his absconding son.

However, by the time the case reached the High Court for the second time, the focus had shifted from the merits of the case to a more pressing issue: the petitioner's deteriorating health. Aged 76, Nirwal had undergone open spinal surgery and was suffering from multiple severe ailments requiring constant specialized medical care that the jail authorities could not adequately provide.

Arguments: Medical Emergency vs. Flight Risk

Petitioner's counsel, Mr. Tanheer Singh Bariana, confined his submissions strictly to medical grounds, reserving the right to argue on merits and prolonged custody separately. He submitted that the petitioner was not a flight risk as all documentary evidence was already with the ED, and offered to accept any stringent conditions, including automatic revocation of bail if he committed specified serious offences.

The ED, represented by Additional Solicitor General Mr. Satya Pal Jain, opposed the bail vigorously, pointing to the petitioner's alleged evasion of summons since 2016, his prior convictions (12 years and 4 years in two separate FIRs), and the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA. The ED's reply argued that the jail authorities had managed his spinal surgery and that he could be shifted to government hospitals if needed. It also contended that a successive bail application was not maintainable.

Legal Analysis: Article 21 Overrides Statutory Rigor

The Court, however, confined its consideration strictly to medical grounds and prolonged custody, brushing aside objections based on the merits of the case. It held that the rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA, which imposes twin conditions for bail, could not stand in the way of an accused whose medical condition made prison treatment a mere formality.

"The rigors of section 45 under PMLA cannot be a hindrance if someone is medically so unfit that the treatment inside the closed walls of the prison becomes a mere formality. Accordingly, denying bail would violate such a person's right to life , which can be taken only by due process of law and is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India ," the Court declared.

The Bench also noted that the petitioner had already spent over five years in custody, and the trial was proceeding at a snail's pace. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of U.P. (2024), the Court emphasized that prolonged incarceration without an end in sight for the trial infringes the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. It observed that the ED's own inefficiency in recovering proceeds of crime could not justify keeping the petitioner behind bars indefinitely.

Precedents Supporting Compassionate Bail

The Court drew upon several Supreme Court judgments to buttress its reasoning. In Tulsi Ram Yadav v. State of U.P. (2020), interim bail was granted to a life convict suffering from pancreatic cancer. In Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra (2024), the Supreme Court had considered the composite effect of age, ailments, and delay in framing charges to grant bail. The High Court also cited Gautam Kundu v. Manoj Kumar (2015) for the proposition that the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA itself carves out an exception for the sick and infirm.

The Final Order: Interim Relief with Conditions

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court granted interim bail to the petitioner from September 11, 2026, to December 21, 2026, with liberty to seek extension if his health condition does not improve. The bail was granted subject to furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 1,00,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court.

The Court directed that the petitioner must surrender by 11 AM on December 22, 2026, and clarified that the order would not be considered a blanket bail order in any other matter. It also directed that the order be communicated to the jail authorities promptly and that the petitioner be released on the same day or the next day, in line with the Supreme Court's directions in Pila Pahan v. State of Jharkhand (2026).

The judgment serves as a powerful reminder that even in cases involving stringent anti-money laundering laws, the right to life and health of an elderly accused cannot be sacrificed at the altar of statutory rigor. As the Court put it, "Denying bail in such cases can be unkind and goes against the conscience of the Court."