Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Sachin Joshi vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 28 September, 2021
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Sanjiv Khanna
1
ITEM NO.4 Court 5 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4482/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-05-2021
in CRLAP No. 127/2021 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Bombay)
SACHIN JOSHI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. Respondent(s)
( IA No. 117076/2021 - APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION
IA No. 117085/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 73192/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 72192/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT
IA No. 72191/2021 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT, IA No. 73191/2021 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 28-09-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Aabad Ponda, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mayank Jain, Adv
Mr. Subhash Jadhav, Adv
Mr. Parmatma Singh, AOR
Madhur Jain, Adv
For Respondent(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, Ld. SG
Mr. S.V. Raju, Ld. ASG
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Adv.
Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Adv.
Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR
Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.
Digitally signed by
Charanjeet kaur
Date: 2021.09.28
17:35:44 IST
Reason: Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv.
Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
2
O R D E R
The petitioner has moved an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PML Act’) seeking release on bail in an offence registered against him in PMLA Special Case No.377/2021. The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay at Mumbai, by an Order dated 03.04.2021, allowed the bail application of the petitioner and directed his release on bail, subject to certain conditions. The Directorate of Enforcement challenged the Order dated 03.04.2021 in the Bombay High Court. The High Court disposed of the application filed by the Directorate of Enforcement by keeping the order granting bail to the petitioner in abeyance. The petitioner was granted temporary bail for a period of two months, subject to the conditions mentioned in the order.
The Sessions Court granted bail to the petitioner on medical grounds by taking note of the first proviso to Section 45 (1) of the PML Act. The Sessions Court opined that there was no need to discuss the merits of the allegations made against the petitioner, as bail was being granted on medical grounds. The High Court directed the petitioner to be examined by a medical board consisting of a neurologist, an endocrinologist and a general 3 physician by an Order dated 09.04.2021. The report of the medical board was submitted to the Court on 19.04.2021.
After a detailed consideration of the report of the medical board, the High Court was of the considered view that the petitioner was not entitled to grant of permanent bail. However, temporary bail for two months was granted to enable the petitioner to receive treatment for his ailments.
Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has contended that the High Court committed a serious error in interfering with the order passed by the Sessions Court, without taking into consideration the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PML Act. Mr. Luthra submitted that the medical record which was placed before the High Court clearly shows that the petitioner has to be under constant treatment aside from the several procedures he has to undergo, including spinal surgery. He submitted that an accused who is sick is entitled to be released on permanent bail without any restrictions, as contemplated in the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the PML Act.
On the other hand, Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General, referred to the medical record relied upon by the petitioner and argued that the surgical interventions required are 4 all minor and the petitioner is not entitled to be released on permanent bail.
Having considered the submissions made by both sides and the material on record, we are of the opinion that there is no error committed by the High Court in interfering with the order passed by the Sessions Court. However, taking note of the submissions made by Mr. Luthra about the treatment of the petitioner, we grant temporary bail to the petitioner for a period of four months from today.
It is made clear that no application for extension of bail shall be entertained by this Court. The temporary bail granted to the petitioner is subject to the conditions that were imposed by the High Court in its Order dated 05.05.2021.
The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Geeta Ahuja) (Anand Prakash) Court Master Court Master