Excise policy: Delhi HC extends Sameer Mahendru’s interim bail by 6 weeks on medical grounds

“However, at the same time, medical grounds can’t frustrate the rigours of special laws like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). In special acts where the legislature has…put in certain restraints for grant of bail and, therefore, the interim bail can never be allowed to be an evergreen process,” it added.

The court also noted a spinal injury, which Mahendru had complained about, and surgery is a “serious issue and the recovery from such may take a long time”.

Taking note of a coordinate bench’s June 12 detailed order, which had granted interim bail and the medical record furnished by Mahendru, the HC extended his interim bail by six weeks. The High Court said, “This (order) won’t be a precedent as it is passed in the peculiar circumstances of the case.”
Justice Sharma said that no further extension of interim bail will be granted on the ground as taken in the present plea. He said, “Mahendru will surrender on September 4 before the trial court before 5 pm.”

Appearing for Mahendru, senior advocate Vikas Pahwa submitted the petitioner is still not well and had a fall on July 16 and suffered spinal injuries.
Opposing the extension, ED’s counsel Zoheb Hossain said that Mahendru had himself visited the agency’s office without any summons on July 18, 21, and 22 which itself shows that Mahendru can walk and move freely.

Hossain said, “Courts have taken a consistent view that interim bail cannot be an evergreen process and would defeat the rigours of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.” He added Mahendru’s medical documents show that his condition is stable and can be treated with medicines prescribed.

The High Court further took note of a July 3 order of the Supreme Court wherein the apex court had refused to interfere with a June 12 order of the HC which had granted Mahendru six weeks of interim bail.

On June 12, the HC while granting interim bail had said, “Though the medical report indicates that the condition of the petitioner is stable at the date of assessment and he is making progress, he is still eligible to be categorised under the term ‘sick’ enumerated under proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA due to the life-threatening nature of the diseases with the likelihood of causing irreversible injury to the petitioner”.