While granting bail to a 76-year-old convict booked under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the rigours 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.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking bail for the second time on medical grounds.

The Bench comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Harmeet Singh Deol held, “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.”

Advocate Tanheer Singh Bariana represented the Petitioner while Additional Solicitor General of India Satya Pal Jain represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

An FIR was initially registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, read with offences under the IPC and the Arms Act. The allegations against the petitioner were of smuggling 925 kg of ketamine to China and one ton of pseudoephedrine to Canada. The police had also seized 10 kilograms of pseudoephedrine and 500 grams of intoxicating powder from the petitioner.

Arguments

It was the petitioner’s case that he is a senior citizen aged 76 years and suffering from multiple severe and debilitating ailments which are posing a grave and imminent threat to his life.

The Enforcement Directorate was opposing the bail even on medical grounds by stating that the petitioner is in judicial custody and all his medical care, including spinal surgery, has been taken care of by the jail authorities.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained that the rationale behind detention and custody is deterrence, retribution, protecting society from such criminals from committing further offences, and sending a firm message to the public not to violate the law enacted by the State, or else their freedom might be curtailed. “At the same time, it reassures victims that the State’s justice system is in place and discourages them from seeking revenge by taking the law into their own hands. Reforming the inmates to prepare for their re-integration into society as a social philosophy behind modern-day prisons becomes futile when they are on the last leg of their lives. The incarceration loses its objectivity when the inmate is a sick and infirm middle-old”, it added.

The Bench observed that it is inhumane to deny bail to middle-aged or old people, or to those who are so sick that they should receive treatment outside prison walls; subject to the exception that the inmate is a recidivist who refuses to mend their ways, or is at flight risk, or that the criminal is of extreme perversity, or that the crime is so heinous or so cruel, that releasing such person on bail would be more disastrous to society. “Denying bail in such cases can be unkind and goes against the conscience of the Court. Thus, 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, and before rejecting the bail application of a person above 75 years of age, the Court must document the reasons for the same”, it stated.

Considering that the petitioner’s custody was over 5 years, the Bench held that the petitioner was entitled not only to medical bail but also bail on the ground of prolonged custody. The Bench also explained that the large quantity of narcotics allegedly involved in the case was an offence under the NDPS Act, whereas under the PMLA, the offense was only for money laundering regarding the conversion of the drug money being utilized for other purposes. The Bench thus mentioned, “It is always within the purview of the Enforcement Directorate to recover all the proceeds of crime traced to a precursor offense, but it would not mean that when the trial is not being concluded for such a long time, the person should still be kept in custody because of the inability and the inefficiency of the Enforcement Directorate to recover the money, or furthermore for the loopholes in the statute itself.”

Thus, taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the petitioner being 76 years and his old age, the Bench granted him interim bail from September 11, 2026, to December 21, 2026, with the liberty to file an application for extension of interim bail, if the health condition would not improve.

Cause Title: Davinder Singh Nirwal @ Dev v. Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:128058-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Tanheer Singh Bariana, Jangveer Singh Bariana

Respondent: Additional Solicitor General of India Satya Pal Jain, Advocate Akash Vashisth

Click here to read/download Order


Tags: