Today, On 14th October, The Supreme Court ruled that even under strict laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), bail can be granted to those who are sick or infirm. A bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized that legal principles must still guide the Court’s actions, despite the stringent nature of such laws.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court, On Monday, emphasized the importance of granting bail to individuals who are sick or infirm under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra highlighted that although the PMLA imposes strict conditions for bail, the Court must still adhere to established legal principles when considering such cases.
Read Also: Supreme Court: ED Required Special Court Permission to Arrest PMLA Accused
The bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud stated,
“Regardless of how stringent the PMLA is, we must act according to the law. If someone is sick or infirm, they can be granted bail. Refer to the medical board report,”
The Court subsequently granted interim bail to Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani, former Chairman of Seva Vikas Co-operative Bank, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with a money laundering case.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the petitioner, argued that Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani suffers from chronic kidney disease and is unable to carry out daily activities while in custody.
Advocate Nadkarni proposed that Mulchandani could be admitted to a nearby hospital under supervision. In response, Rohatgi emphasized that the accused, aged 67, has already spent a year and three months in jail and has not been implicated in any predicate offence.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling highlights an important balance between the enforcement of strict laws like the PMLA and the protection of individual rights, especially when it comes to the health of the accused.
This judgment provides guidance for future cases, emphasizing that the strictness of a law should not prevent courts from acting in accordance with fundamental legal and humanitarian principles. It establishes a precedent that could have a significant impact on how bail applications are handled in cases involving serious offenses under stringent legal frameworks.