In a bail application filed before the Delhi High Court by Amitabh Jhunjhunwala under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 seeking regular bail from judicial custody of the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Madhu Jain allowed the application and directed the petitioner to be released on bail.
The Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered by the ED based on the FIRs registered by the CBI, regarding allegations concerning Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd. (RCFL) and Reliance Home Finance Ltd. (RHFL), including allegations related to investments made by Yes Bank in form of Non-Convertible Debentures/Commercial Papers and the alleged diversion of funds through connected entities.
The investigation under PMLA was regarding the alleged diversion of funds raised by RHFL and RCFL through a network of shell entities. ED alleged that an aggregate amount of Rs.15,933.65 crores were disbursed to shell entities, and that RHFL and RCFL subsequently defaulted in their obligations towards lenders and investors. It was also alleged that several entities were used as conduits for the diversion and layering of funds.
The case set up by the investigating agency was that while Amitabh Jhunjhunwala (petitioner) was the Director and Vice Chairman of Reliance Capital Ltd. (R-Cap) as well as the Group Managing Director of the Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, he exercised control and supervision over R-CAP and its subsidiaries, including RHFL and RCFL, and played a role in the sanction, diversion and utilisation of funds. The petitioner disputed this stating that he was only a Non-Executive Vice Chairman with no position in RHFL or RCFL and no role in the alleged transactions. On 15-04-2026, the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20-04-2026, while the prosecution complaint was filed on 12-06-2026. The petitioner’s application seeking bail on medical grounds had earlier been dismissed by the Special Judge (PC Act), CBI-03, Rouse Avenue District Courts, on 05-09-2026, prompting the present petition.
The principal basis for the present application was the 70-year-old petitioner’s medical condition as he suffered from coronary artery disease, hypertension and dyslipidaemia, and had undergone angioplasty with stent implantation in 2008. In January 2026, prior to arrest, he suffered a fall resulting in an anterior wedge compression fracture of the D-11 vertebra, which remained unhealed per an X-ray dated 09-03-2026. Further, the petitioner stated that his condition deteriorated and he repeatedly complained about severe back pain, numbness, and tingling in the lower limbs, chest pain as well as other symptoms.
The Court stated that the primary question was whether the petitioner could be said to fall within the expression ‘sick or infirm’ so as to attract the statutory exception based on the material on record. It was said that the question whether a person is sick cannot be answered merely by examining whether he is presently medically stable. The Court mentioned that even though the RML Medical Board report dated 08-07-2026 described the D-11 fracture as a healed fracture, it could not read in isolation from the later medical material.
It was noted that the Senior Medical Officer, Tihar Jail, in his report dated 25-06-2026 recorded that the petitioner was obtaining only marginal relief from medication and requires specialized and regular treatment. The Court also noted a Vacation Judge’s findings in an order dated 27-06-2026 wherein it was stated that the medical condition “does not make a very happy reading” and that the petitioner required urgent medical attention.
Further, noting the respondent’s substantial reliance upon the expression ‘conservative management’, the Court stated that the fact that a condition is being conservatively managed does not mean that no medical intervention is required. The Court also refused to accept the proposition that the petitioner must first reach a stage of irreversible or imminent danger to life before the proviso to Section 45(1) can be invoked. It was stated that the object of a medical exception is not to wait until the consequences of inadequate treatment become irreversible, but to permit the Court to intervene where the medical condition and the surrounding circumstances justify such intervention.
The Court held that the petitioner fell within the expression ‘sick or infirm’ occurring in the
proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. Hence, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions including furnishing his residential address and mobile number, not leaving the country without permission, appearing before the Trial Court on each hearing date, and not contacting or influencing any witness or tampering with evidence. Thus, the application was disposed of.
