Why Jet Airways Founder Naresh Goyal Has Been Released On Bail In A PMLA Case

The Bombay High Court on Monday granted interim bail to Naresh Goyal, the founder of Jet Airways Ltd., for two months due to health reasons.

In this case, it was argued that both Goyal and his wife, Anita, are battling terminal cancer. Due to his illness, Goyal is classified as "sick and infirm,"  which, according to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, permits the release on bail of individuals in such conditions.

The bench observed that the bail request was based solely on the medical condition of the applicant and his wife, Anita. It was also submitted that Goyal’s wife's deteriorating health is also affecting his mental well-being.

It was argued that the applicant's detention, given his and his wife's health conditions, would violate their right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 

Since he doesn't pose a flight risk, isn't likely to tamper with evidence, and has strong ties to the community, a request for bail on medical grounds was made, the bench said. 

The high court bench noted that the proviso regarding ‘sick and infirm’ aimed to soften the bail restrictions set out in the PMLA. It granted discretion to the court to provide bail despite the main section's restrictions. However, this discretion had to be exercised judiciously.

The bench further noted that the Parliament had used the terms "sick" and "infirm" separately, indicating that a person could be considered infirm without being sick, and vice versa. 

However, not all sicknesses warranted bail, as the seriousness of the ailment had to be considered. Reports from medical experts assisted the court in determining whether the person seeking bail was suffering from an illness warranting release.

The court usually considered whether the sickness could not be effectively treated in prison or government hospitals, and the severity of the disease when exercising discretion. However, bail could still be granted for sicknesses that were not life-threatening, as the provision aimed to protect the right to life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

It was important to note that infirmity could arise from various causes, not just sickness. Therefore, the court had to interpret the provision in a way that upheld the right to life. Prisoners had the right to proper treatment to preserve their health, and it was the state's responsibility to provide necessary treatment. 

Therefore, the high court emphasised that a person could seek the benefit of the proviso, even if they were not sick but were infirm.

The court observed that Goyal’s tumours have spread, requiring a complicated surgical procedure. However, he opted for medical chemotherapy instead due to the high risks associated with the surgery. Medical opinions confirmed the severity of Goyal's illness, affirming that he was indeed sick with cancer. 

Goyal, aged 72, also suffered from other ailments exacerbated by his wife's critical condition.

Considering these circumstances, the court believed that whether Goyal received adequate treatment at the hospital was not the main concern. Even though Goyal was receiving treatment at a preferred hospital, being an undertrial prisoner meant he might not receive the same level of care as a free citizen. 

Given Goyal's age, illness, recommended treatment, and the critical condition of his wife, the court decided to exercise its discretion under the proviso to grant bail. 

Goyal was granted bail for two months, subject to stringent conditions to ensure he complied with legal requirements and did not interfere with the judicial process. 

Goyal has to furnish bonds worth Rs 1 lakh and sureties to the satisfaction of the PMLA Court in Mumbai.

He must remain within Greater Mumbai's jurisdiction and surrender his passport if not already done. Goyal must provide his contact details to the investigating officer and refrain from tampering with evidence or communicating with the co-accused.

Violation of these conditions will result in bail cancellation. Within a week of release, he must submit an undertaking to the PMLA Court confirming his compliance.