The Delhi High Court has refused the bail on medical grounds to a person accused of money laundering.
The bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia has observed that according to the Medical Status Report, the accused applicant is stable and regularly reviewed by the doctor on duty; and all medicines prescribed by AIIMS are being provided to him from the jail dispensary itself. So, on that count also the accused/applicant has failed to establish a ground for grant of bail.
The accused/applicant seeks bail under Section 45/65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act) read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in the Prosecution Complaint, Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) for offence under Section 3 and 4 of the PML Act The bail is sought on merits as well as on medical grounds.
The accused/applicant was unofficially a shareholder in the firm, namely Goverdhan Mines and Minerals (GMM), which carried out illegal and unscientific mining; and pertaining to the same, the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB), Bhiwani filed a Complaint under Section 15 read with Sections 16 and 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act before the court of Special Judge, Environment Court, Kurukshetra, Haryana and the same is pending trial.
During pendency of bail application before the predecessor bench, the accused/applicant also filed a miscellaneous application seeking interim bail on medical grounds. The predecessor bench granted interim bail for a period of six weeks to the accused/applicant, directing him to surrender immediately after expiry of six weeks from the date of release.
The department opposed the bail application, contending that the gravity of offences with expanse causing huge loss to the exchequer and consequent gain to the GMM and the accused/applicant does not permit release of the accused/applicant on bail. In view of the quantum of the unlawful gain earned by the accused/applicant, the apprehension of DoE is not baseless that he would flee the country and/or would hamper further investigation and/or trial, if released on bail.
The court while dismissing the bail application held that the elaborate Complaint, supported by voluminous documentary record reflecting the unlawful gain to the accused persons, including the accused/applicant and the consequent unlawful loss to the exchequer quantified to be Rs.78,14,75,324, coupled with failure on the twin tests laid down under Section 45 of the PML Act; and no serious health
issue decipherable from the Medical Status Report received from the jail.
Case Details
Case Title: Vedpal Singh Tanwar Versus ED
Case No.: BAIL APPLN. 4102/2024
Date: 09.06.2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Vikas Pahwa, Sr. Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Zoheb Hossain
