Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court on Monday, September 30, modified the bail conditions of a businessman Amit Katyal, directing him to 'appear only once a month', specifically on the first Monday of each month.

The present case stemmed from a plea that sought modifications in the bail conditions. Notably, on June 29, The Delhi High Court had granted bail to businessman Amit Katyal, an accused in the land-for-jobs scam after considering a report filed by the medical board of AIIMS.

The bench, led by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, while modifying the bail conditions, observed that the investigation in the case has been completed and a prosecution complaint has been filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).The court also noted that Amit Katyal is a resident of Delhi, has been regularly appearing before the trial court.

During the hearing, the counsel appearing for  Amit Katyal requested a modification of the bail condition that mandated Katyal to appear before the investigating officer every Monday and Thursday between 10 a.m. and 11 p.m.He argued before the bench that Katyal falls under the category of sick and infirm "The investigation is completed, the chargesheet has been filed, and the trial is ongoing,'' he added.

At this juncture, Advocate Mohit Jain appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed the modification of bail condition, and said,'' We will file the response.''

Refuting the argument, Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri reiterated, “What response do you need to file regarding the bail modification?

"Please understand, you are not opposing the bail application; bail has already been granted. He is required to appear on Monday and Thursday. What will you do on Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, and Sunday?”Justice Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri added.

To this, The ED's counsel contended that based on the evidence collected in connection with the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) First Information Report (FIR), the investigation is still ongoing. He highlighted that if the scope of the investigation is expanded further, there could be possible implications.

 On June 29, The Delhi High Court's bench led by Justice Dharmesh Sharma granted bail to Amit Katyal after considering the report filed by the medical board of AIIMS, which concluded that Katyal's Bariatric Surgery, required care and attention with minute monitoring to achieve adequate physical, mental, and psychological well-being.

The bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma held, “He needs to be given a proper diet to attain adequate physical, mental and psychological well-being for at least a period of 3 to 4 months. The level of care, attention, minute-to-minute monitoring and emergency response which the applicant requires, cannot be provided at the jail presently”.

In an order dated June 11, the court had instructed the Director of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to form a medical board consisting of at least three doctors from different specialties to assess the health of Amit Katyal. The court stated that it could not assume the role of a medical expert by evaluating Katyal’s condition solely from the medical records. Previously, the court had declined his plea seeking to quash ED's proceedings initiated against him. 

Senior Advocate Aman Lekhi, representing Katyal, argued that his client suffers from various health issues, exacerbated by the post-operative effects of Bariatric Surgery conducted per the court order. He emphasized the critical dietary needs for Katyal’s survival, as outlined by the AIIMS Medical Board's report.

Senior Advocate Lekhi notified the court regarding the inadequacies of Tihar Jail in meeting these dietary requirements and cited a medical examination at DDU Hospital. He highlighted discrepancies between the prescribed diet and what was provided to Katyal in jail, stressing the importance of adhering to medical recommendations.

Special Public Prosecutor Zoheb Hossain, representing the ED, argued that Katyal’s plea for interim bail on medical grounds was extensively discussed and denied on June 7, 2024. He noted Katyal had previously been granted 84 days of interim bail on medical grounds and should not repeatedly seek such relief.

The court, noting the report from the central jail, observed that Katyal’s dietary needs for health and survival were only partially met. The doctors at DDU Hospital indicated that a strict diet was critical and essential for Katyal’s recovery, especially since 75% of his stomach had been removed during surgery. The treatment card also suggested that without a proper diet, Katyal’s recovery was unlikely. The court noted that Katyal was experiencing fever and irregular blood glucose levels, along with episodes of blood vomiting.

The court furthermore accepted the opinion of the AIIMS Medical Board that the jail’s primary healthcare facility could provide treatment, it was crucial to acknowledge that Katyal required a special diet for full physical, mental, and psychological recovery post-Bariatric Surgery. 

The court stated that the discretion to grant bail on medical grounds should be exercised sparingly and cautiously and that not every illness warranted bail unless it was shown that proper treatment could not be obtained in jail. The court reiterated that the right to interim bail on medical grounds arises when specialized treatment becomes necessary and cannot be provided by jail authorities. 

Additionally, the court noted, “It would be relevant to point out that interpretation of the proviso to Section 45 (1) of the PMLA as to what constitutes a person to be ‘sick or ‘infirm’ has come up for judicial discussion and interpretation in a plethora of judgments”. The court further referred to the case of Kewal Krishan Kumar v Enforcement of Directorate (2023 SCC OnLine Del 1547) and noted that bail was granted in cases with similar facts and circumstances. 

Accordingly, the court opined that Katyal’s dietary needs post-surgery could not be met in jail, and he required proper diet and monitoring for at least 3 to 4 months for adequate recovery. “It is but manifest that the dietary requirements of the applicant are such that they cannot be provided in the jail premises”, the court added. 

Case Title: Amit Katyal v Directorate Of Enforcement (2024:DHC:4776)