Supreme Court directs fresh bail consideration on medical grounds in PMLA case: Chander Prakash Wadhwa vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (22 October 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 October 2022

Citation: Not available in the source document

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, CJI and Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Can a person, who has been denied bail, seek a fresh consideration of their bail application due to a change in their medical condition? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court considered whether new medical reports warranted a re-evaluation of a previously rejected bail plea. The bench comprised Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

The petitioner, Chander Prakash Wadhwa, was arrested in two separate cases. The first case was lodged by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi, while the second was by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Initially, the petitioner was granted interim bail in the first case due to his medical condition. However, during this interim bail period, he was arrested in the second case by the Directorate of Enforcement and has remained in custody since. The petitioner’s bail application in the second case was rejected by the Trial Court on 27.05.2022, and this order was not further challenged.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioner’s initial bail application was rejected by the Trial Court on 27.05.2022. The petitioner did not challenge this order. Earlier, the Supreme Court had also considered and rejected the petitioner’s plea for interim bail on medical grounds after reviewing a report from a medical board from King George’s Medical University, Lucknow, which found his condition to be stable. The current petition was filed based on new medical reports, including one from the Senior Medical Officer, Central Jail No.11, Mandoli, New Delhi, detailing the petitioner’s ongoing health issues.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the consideration of bail applications, particularly in the context of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. While the judgment does not explicitly quote any specific section of the Act, it operates within the framework of criminal procedure where bail is considered based on various factors, including medical conditions. The court’s focus is on whether a change in circumstances, such as a deterioration in health, warrants a fresh consideration of bail, even after a previous rejection.

Arguments

The petitioner argued that his current medical condition, as detailed in the recent medical reports, warrants a fresh consideration of his bail application. The reports highlighted significant health issues, including heart blockages, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, difficulty in breathing, chest pain, and trigeminal neuralgia. Specifically, the medical reports stated:

• “5.The medical records related to heart of the inmate reflected about 80 percent blockage in one left artery and 90 percentage blockage in another artery along with 50 percent blockage in third artery. He has history of high BP and high Cholesterol for which he is taking medication since long time. Cardiology department of King George Medical College advise for angiography (cardiac intervention) on 18.09.2021 but not be done. He has problem of difficulty in breathing and chest pain while walking so he was sent to RML Hospital and examined by cardiologist and advised routine blood investigations, ECHO and angiography. His blood investigations has been done but report is awaited. They also advised medication that provided to him from jail dispensary. He has also family history of heart disease so proper treatment and investigation require in time to prevent any heart attack. At present his problem is not improving.”
• “6.The medical report of inmate says that he is also suffering from trigeminal neuralgia. Neurologist of Ganga Ram Hospital treated to him and later on King George Medical College and advised to avoid heat and directed air flow over face. His MRI report showed a small vascular loop present in relation to cisterna segment of fifth cranial nerve. On dated 03.10.2022, he was sent to RML Hospital in neurology department. Neurologist examined to him and advised to medications (Carbarnazepine and Pregalin-NT) in increased dose as compared to previous dose. But pain in over face is still persisted. That also advised to cure dental issue, which are triggering it and take precautions from exposures of direct air/cold/heat. He needs to walk with same precautionary due to frequent neurological pain attack.”

The petitioner contended that these conditions were not present or fully known at the time of the previous bail rejection and thus constitute a new ground for bail. The petitioner did not rely on any specific authorities in the source document.

The respondent’s arguments are not detailed in the source document.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the petitioner is entitled to file a fresh bail application based on the projected medical grounds before the Trial Court.
• Whether the petitioner can challenge the order dated 27.05.2022 on merits as well as on the projected medical condition.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not cite any specific cases or legal provisions other than the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Court’s decision is based on the principle that a change in circumstances, such as a deterioration in health, can warrant a fresh consideration of bail.

Judgment

The Court directed that the petitioner is entitled to file a fresh bail application before the Trial Court based on his medical condition. The Court also allowed the petitioner to challenge the previous order dated 27.05.2022 on both merits and the projected medical condition. The Court further stated that the Trial Court should consider the matter on its own merits and, if necessary, may have the petitioner examined by a Medical Board consisting of four medical professionals. The Court observed that the medical report was given well after the disposal of the bail application by the Trial Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the new medical reports detailing the petitioner’s deteriorating health. The Court recognized that the petitioner’s medical condition had significantly changed since the previous rejection of his bail application. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the medical reports were given well after the disposal of the bail application by the Trial Court.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that a change in circumstances, particularly a significant deterioration in health, can warrant a fresh consideration of bail. The Court emphasized the need for a fair and just process, ensuring that the petitioner’s current medical condition is properly evaluated by the Trial Court.

Key Takeaways

• A significant change in medical condition can be a valid ground for a fresh bail application, even after a previous rejection.
• Trial Courts are directed to consider such applications on their own merits, including the option of forming a Medical Board for evaluation.
• The Supreme Court ensures that individuals’ health concerns are addressed within the legal framework.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The petitioner is entitled to file a fresh bail application on medical grounds before the Trial Court.
• The petitioner may challenge the order dated 27.05.2022 on merits as well as on the projected medical condition.
• The Trial Court shall consider the matter on its own merits and may have the petitioner examined by a Medical Board if necessary.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principle that a change in circumstances, particularly a significant deterioration in health, can warrant a fresh consideration of bail. The ratio decidendi of the case is that a court must take into account new and compelling medical evidence when considering bail applications, even if bail was previously denied. This ensures that the legal process remains sensitive to the evolving health needs of the accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in Chander Prakash Wadhwa vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. allows the petitioner to seek a fresh consideration of his bail application based on new medical reports. The Court’s decision highlights the importance of considering updated medical conditions in bail proceedings, ensuring that the legal process is both fair and sensitive to the health needs of the accused. The Trial Court is now tasked with re-evaluating the petitioner’s bail plea, taking into account the new medical evidence and the option of forming a Medical Board for a thorough assessment.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Bail
Child Category: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
Parent Category: Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
Child Category: Bail under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002

FAQ

Q: Can a person apply for bail again if their medical condition worsens after their previous bail application was rejected?
A: Yes, the Supreme Court has stated that a significant change in medical condition can be a valid ground for a fresh bail application.

Q: What should the Trial Court do when considering a fresh bail application based on medical grounds?
A: The Trial Court should consider the matter on its own merits and may have the petitioner examined by a Medical Board consisting of four medical professionals if necessary.

Q: What if the medical reports are from after the previous bail application was rejected?
A: The Supreme Court has taken cognizance of the fact that the medical report was given well after the disposal of the bail application by the Trial Court.