Bombay High Court
USHIK MAHESH GALAversusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the applicant is "sick and infirm" within the meaning of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA and therefore is entitled to enlargement of medical bail.
Summary
Ushik Mahesh Gala, accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, was arrested in 2025 and subsequently granted interim medical bail for gall‑bladder surgery. After undergoing additional hernia surgery in July 2026, he applied for an enlargement of medical bail, citing morbid obesity and post‑operative complications. The Court examined medical reports, the statutory provisions of Section 45(1) of the PMLA and the proviso that a person who is "sick or infirm" may be released on bail without satisfying the twin conditions. Relying on precedents that treat obesity and its sequelae as a disease rendering the accused infirm, the Court held that the applicant fell within the ambit of the proviso. Consequently, the Court granted the requested enlargement of medical bail subject to strict conditions. The order also directed the investigating officer to monitor the applicant’s health and cooperation with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicant satisfies the twin conditions under Section 45(1) of the PMLA for bail.
- Whether the applicant's medical condition qualifies as "sick and infirm" under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, justifying enlargement of medical bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 420, 467
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — s. 45
Subjects
- medical bail
- PMLA
- Section 45(1)
- sick and infirm
- obesity
- hernia surgery
- economic offences
- Enforcement Directorate
Judgment
BA.1836.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.1836 OF 2026
Ushik Mahesh Gala .. Applicant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Rishi Bhuta, Advocate and Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior
Advocate a/w. Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, Mr. Pushkraj Deshpande,
Mr. Rohan Marathe and Ms. Bhumika Khandelwal i/b. ALMT Legal,
Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. Pavan Patil a/w. Mr. Shubham Saraf, Mr. Tanmay Deshmukh
and Mr. Soham Badole, Advocates for Respondent No.1
Ms. Gauri S. Rao, APP for Respondent No.2 – State.
......…...........
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 24, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Bhuta, Advocate for Applicant, Mr. Patil, learned
Advocate for Directorate of Enforcement and Ms. Rao, learned APP for
Respondent No.2 – State.
2. Present Bail Application is filed by Applicant under Section
483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking enlargement
on medical bail pursuant to his arrest by Respondent No.1 in
ECIR/MBZO-I/14/2024.
3. Applicant is arraigned as Accused No.8 in EOW Crime No.08
of 2022 filed by Economic Offences Wing (for short “EOW”). Applicant
1 of 17
BA.1836.2026.doc
was arrested on 25.02.2022 by EOW in the predicate offences and
subsequently enlarged on bail by 47th Magistrate Court on 14.03.2022.
This order was taken / challenged unsuccessfully right upto the
Supreme Court. Three years thereafter, in or about 2025, i.e.
Respondent No.1 registered ECIR/MBZO-I/14/2024 consisting of
offences under Schedule – I of Prevention of Money Laundering Act,
2002 (for short “PMLA, 2002”) being Sections 420 and 467 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 at Worli Police Station which was transferred to
Economic Offences Wing as Crime No.08 of 2022. Applicant was
arrested in respect of scheduled offences on 17.11.2025 and was
remanded to custody till 24.11.2025.
4. On 18.12.2025, Applicant filed Bail Application No.1273 of
2025 before Special Judge seeking interim medical bail for gall bladder
surgery which was allowed by order dated 24.12.2025. This was in
view of the subsisting medical ailment and condition of Applicant.
However, Applicant was unable to undertake his surgery and hence he
filed Miscellaneous Application No.89.2026 dated 19.01.2026 seeking
extension of medical bail. By order dated 23.01.2026 medical bail was
extended till 02.03.2026. Applicant underwent gall bladder surgery on
07.02.2026 and sought extension of medical bail for a period of 6
months for rehabilitation which was rejected by order dated
06.04.2026. However on challenge interim relief was continued by this
Court. Hence present Bail Application on medical grounds.
2 of 17
BA.1836.2026.doc
5. Mr. Bhuta, has taken me through the Applicant’s Medical
Reports placed on record and prepared by the State run J.J. Hospital
and the Applicant’s treating doctor Mr. Borude of “Bariatics by
Borude”. With his able assistance I have perused the same. He would
submit that since filing of present Bail Application, health of Applicant
has progressively worsened. He would submit that post Applicant’s gall
bladder surgery on 07.02.2026, he experienced severe abdominal
cramps which were subsequently diagnosed as hernia and he
underwent further hernia surgery on 10.07.2026 and is now under
rehabilitation. He would submit that Applicant suffers from morbid
obesity which increased his risk of hernia and but undergoing hernia
surgery, he is at a high risk of port – site hernia developing at incision
locations due to his weight related issue.
5.1. He would submit that on 16.07.2026, Dr. Rahul Borude,
Bariatic Surgeon examined the Applicant and advised him complete
bedrest until November 2026 as post operative rehabilitation. He
would submit that Applicant is medically vulnerable due to his morbid
obesity which resulted in his surgeries. He would submit that
Applicant’s medical condition squarely falls under the provisio to
Section 45(1) of PMLA, 2002 and hence urges Court to enlarge the
Applicant on Medical bail.
5.2. He would refer to and rely upon the following decisions o in
3 of 17
BA.1836.2026.doc
support of his case:-
(i) Pranjil Batra Vs. Directorate of Enforcement1
(ii) Sameer Mahandru Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement2
(iii) Devki Nandan Garg Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement3
(iv) Naresh Goyal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and
Anr.4
(v) Naresh Goyal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 5
(vi) Subodh Kumar Goel Vs. Enforcement Directorate6
(vii) Ramesh Chandra Vs. Directorate of Enforcement7
(viii)Radhika Kapoor Vs. State and Ors.8
(ix) Sandeep Aggarwal Vs. Priyanka Aggarwal9
(x) Joni S.K. Vs. Union of India and Ors.10
(xi) Dr. P.V. Varavara Rao Vs. National Investigating
Agency and Anr.11
6. PER CONTRA, Mr. Patil, learned Advocate appearing for
Respondent No.1 – Enforcement Directorate would submit that
Applicant has failed to satisfy the mandatory twin conditions under
Section 45(1) of PMLA, 2002 and allegations and case against
Applicant involves serious economic offenses. He would submit that
the twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45(1) of PMLA,
2002 are to be construed and applied strictly to accused persons who
1 CRM – M – 23705 of 2022 decided on 04th November 2022
2 Crl. MA No.10859 of 2023 decided on 12th June 2023
3 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3086
4 Bail Application No.2494 of 2024 decided on 11th November 2024
5 2024 SCC Online Bom 1259
6 2025 SCC Online Cal 6939
7 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1706
8 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6652
9 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5521
10 WPA No.27189 of 2024 decided on 21st May 2025
11 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 230
4 of 17
BA.1836.2026.doc
are sick and infirm and where continuous custody would adversely
affect their health. He would submit that medical condition of
Applicant is not that serious or life threatening that warrants his
release on bail notwithstanding that his is already enlarged on Medical
bail since 24.12.2025 and he having undergone two surgeries
especially when adequate treatment and follow up can be provided
within jail or government facilities to him and hence Applicant’s does
not fall within the definition of sick and infirm per person as
contemplated in the provisio of Section 45(1) of PMLA, 2002.
6.1. He would submit that Applicant had undergone bariatric
surgery in 2022 followed by gall bladder removal surgery and is in post
– operative care and suffering from post – operative dyspepsia along
with sacropenia. He would submit that these medical conditions
merely involve digestive discomfort and reduced muscle mass, that
they are standard features of post bariatric surgery recovery and do not
indicate existence of any acute or life threatening condition which
requires emergency intervention, intensive care or continuous
hospitalization.
6.2. He would submit that though admittedly Applicant suffers
from obesity, it is not pleaded as an independent subsisting illness but
only formed the basis for Applicant’s bariatric surgery. He would
submit that Applicant is confined to post operative management and
5 of 17
BA.1836.2026.doc
recovery which does not disclose any serious life threatening ailments
to attract provisio to Section 45 of PMLA, 2002 to his case.
6.3. He would submit that prevention of further infections,
continuity of care, monthly follow ups and long term dietary
supervision are not conditions that render Applicant incapable of
medical assistance by prison hospital while in custody. He would
submit that Applicant underwent gall bladder surgery and was
discharged in a stable condition with now only routine follow up
advised.
6.4. He would submit that Applicant only requires post operative
care and no serious or life threatening ailment is made out so as to
attract provisio to Section 45 PMLA, 2002. He would submit that
interim bail on medical grounds in such a situation cannot be granted
only as a matter of routine and must be granted as an exception and
Applicant’s case does not fall within any such exception so as to
warrant consideration. He would refer to and rely upon the following
decisions of this Court, various High Courts and the Supreme Court in
support of his submissions:- (i) Kewal Krishan Kumar Vs. Directorate of
Enforcement12, (ii) Ramesh Chandra Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 13,
(iii) Aditya Avinash Sood Vs. State of Maharashtra14 and; (iv) Asim
Mallik Vs. State of Odisha15
12 (2023) SCC OnLine Del 1547
13 2024 SCC OnLine Del 1821
14 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5587
15 Diary No.57403 of 2024 decided on 24.04.2025
6 of 17
BA.1836.2026.doc
7. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties
and with their able assistance, perused the record of the case.
Submissions made by learned Advocates at the bar have received due
consideration of the Court.
8. Applicant before this Court seeks enlargement on medical
bail and has filed numerous medical reports and discharge summary
issued by Dr. Rahul Borude of Bariatrics by Borude, J.J. Group of
Hospitals Mumbai, Breach Candy Hospital and Chief Medical Officer
Mumbai Central Prison to show that he suffered from several ailments
since 2022 which prompted have him to undergo a number of
surgeries. Certain reports are alluded to determine the severity of
Applicant's medical condition viz:- (i) Medical report dated 18.02.2026
issued by Dr. Rahul Borude of “Bariatrics by Borude” states that
Applicant is in post operative rehabilitation however since his immune
system may be compromised hence he is at risk of severe infection
which may be fatal and life threatening; (ii) Discharge summary dated
13.07.2026 issued by Breach Candy Hospital states that Applicant
suffers from Multi Incisional Hernias on his abdomen for which surgery
was performed on 10.07.2026 by Dr. Rahul Borude and; (iii) Medical
report dated 16.07.2026 issued by Dr. Rahul Borude of “Bariatrics by
Borude” states that Applicant is being managed for post - operative
gastrectomy performed in 2022, gall bladder removal surgery in
February 2026 and abdominal hernia surgery in July 2026 for which
7 of 17
BA.1836.2026.doc
he was advised rehabilitation at home and close clinical observation.
9. The core case of Respondent No.1 - ED is that Applicant's
medical condition is not serious or life threatening and can be treated
through jail hospital and Government hospitals and that Applicant has
failed to fulfill the twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45(1)
of PMLA and that his he is in post operative rehabilitation, therefore he
cannot invoke the provisio to Section 45(1) of PMLA.
10. Perusal of the material on record and submissions made by
both parties would show that prior to 2022, Applicant suffered from
morbid obesity and underwent Sleeve Gastrectomy and
Cholecystectomy surgery (bariatric surgery) on 18.11.2022. It is seen
that due to certain side effects of the said bariatric surgery, he
underwent gall bladder removal surgery on 07.02.2026, however due
to his consistence obesity he developed abdominal hernia for which he
underwent hernia repair surgery on 10.07.2026. Case of Respondent
No.1 – ED is that Applicant is in post surgery rehabilitation and
therefore facilities provided by government and State run medical
institutions / jails will serve as adequate healthcare facilities for
Applicant’s recuperation in such background. I cannot countenance this
submission since as seen above, the material filed on record paint a
clear picture of Applicant's medical infirmities and poor health
conditions which stem from his morbid obesity. I would like to refer to
8 of 17
BA.1836.2026.doc
and rely upon a decision passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court
in the case of Pranjil Batra Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 16 which was
relied upon by Mr. Bhuta to enumerate that obesity is a disease that
may lead to causation of several other diseases. Relevant paragraph
No.21 thereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ease of reference:-
21. Obesity, as in the case of the petitioner, who weighs 153
kilograms is not just a symptom but is itself a disease which
becomes root-cause of several other diseases. With such co-
morbodities, the response, the resistance, the resilience and the
capacity of the body to fight ailments and recuperate
efficaciously, decreases substantially. The jail doctor or for that
matter, a civil hospital may not be fully equiped to handle a
patient having multiple aiments who apart from medical
treatmet may require a certain level of monitoring, care and
attention which ordinarily is not available in jail. Considering
the co-morbodities of the petitioner, it can safely be said that he
falls in the exception of being “sick” as carved out in Section 45
of the Act, so as to be entitled tobe released on bail. The
petitioner, otherwise has been behind bars since the last about 8
months. Supplementary complaint already stands presented
against him. There is no occasion for his custodial interrogation
now at this stage. The co-accused Radhe Shyam and Bansi Lal
were released on bail immediately upon their appearance in
Court pursuance to issuance of summons for their appearance.
11. The words of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case
of Pranjil Batra Vs. Directorate of Enforcement17 deserve reiteration in
the present case since Applicant suffers from morbid obesity and
consequently was compelled to undergo three different surgeries
despite which on two occasions i.e. on 22.12.2025 and as recent as on
18.02.2026 his condition was described as life threatening by his
treating doctor. Therefore, in my considered opinion it would be
wholly erroneous to conclude that Applicant is fully recovered and
16 Supra
17 Supra
9 of 17
BA.1836.2026.doc
cured and merely suffers from obesity since as seen from above obseity
is not a mere disease or life condition but an underlying cause for
further medical complications which can affect overall health and
lifestyle, and in the present case have certainly done so, and therefore
Applicant deserves appropriate rehabilitation and medical care and
attention if he is to stand trial.
12. It is seen that in the case of Devki Nandan Garg Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement 18, relied upon by Mr. Bhuta, Delhi High
Court has rightly held in paragraph No.34 in the said decision that
when any person accused of scheduled offences under PMLA, 2002 fall
within the the ambit of the term “sick and infirm” in the provisio to
Section 45(1) of PMLA, 2002, that accused person is not mandatorily
required to fulfill the twin conditions for grant of bail as enumerated in
Section 45(1) of PMLA, 2002. Contents of paragraph No.34 therefore
come to the aid of Applicant in the present case and it is reproduced
hereinbelow for ease of reference:-
34. The above position was noted by the Supreme Court in
Gautam Kundu v. Enforcement Directorate [Gautam Kundu v.
Enforcement Directorate, (2015) 16 SCC 1 : (2016) 3 SCC (Cri)
603] , particularly para 34 which reads as under: (SCC p. 16,
para 34)
“34. We note that admittedly the complaint is filed
against the appellant on the allegations of
committing the offence punishable under Section 4
of the PMLA. The contention raised on behalf of the
appellant that no offence under Section 24 of the
SEBI Act is made out against the appellant, which is
a scheduled offence under the PMLA, needs to be
18 Supra
10 of 17
BA.1836.2026.doc
considered from the materials collected during the
investigation by the respondents. There is no order
as yet passed by a competent court of law, holding
that no offence is made out against the appellant
under Section 24 of the SEBI Act and it would be
noteworthy that a criminal revision praying for
quashing the proceedings initiated against the
appellant under Section 24 of the SEBI Act is still
pending for hearing before the High Court. We have
noted that Section 45 of the PMLA will have
overriding effect on the general provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure in case of conflict
between them. As mentioned earlier, Section 45 of
the PMLA imposes two conditions for grant of bail,
specified under the said Act. We have not missed
the proviso to Section 45 of the said Act which
indicates that the legislature has carved out an
exception for grant of bail by a Special Court when
any person is under the age of 16 years or is a
woman or is sick or infirm. Therefore, there is no
doubt that the conditions laid down under Section
45-A of the PMLA, would bind the High Court as
the provisions of special law having overriding
effect on the provisions of Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to any
person accused of committing offence punishable
under Section 4 of the PMLA, even when the
application for bail is considered under Section 439
of the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
35. Thus, the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA carves out
an exception from the rigours of Section 45 for persons who are
sick or infirm. Once a person falls within the proviso of Section
45(1), he need not satisfy the twin conditions under Section
45(1) as elucidated in the dicta of Gautam Kundu case [Gautam
Kundu v. Enforcement Directorate, (2015) 16 SCC 1 : (2016) 3
SCC (Cri) 603] .
13. The Court in Naresh Goyal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement
and Anr.19 took a lenient approach to the provisio to Section 45(1) of
PMLA, 2002 wherein this Court went one step further to hold that once
the accused person falls into the meaning of “sick and infirm” as
enumerated under the provisio of Section 45(1) of PMLA, 2002 and is
released on medical bail, the same would continue to subsist even if
19 Supra
11 of 17
BA.1836.2026.doc
the accused person subsequently recovers from his medical condition.
The relevant paragraph No.26 is reproduced hereunder for ease of
reference:-
26. In my view, the question as to whether the person falls
within the ambit of the proviso to Section 45(1) i.e. whether he
is sick or infirm has to be determined at the stage of
consideration for bail. Once the Court finds that the accused
falls within the ambit of the said proviso, then the order of
release on bail would enure, even if subsequently the accused
recovers from the sickness or infirmity.
14. Therefore, from the above decision it is seen that the long
standing practice of “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” is aptly put
into practice in such open and shut cases. In the present circumstances,
Applicant suffers from various medical conditions for which he has
undergone 3 surgeries over the span of less than 4 years which have
affected his overall health and perusal of his medical reports prima
facie show that he requires ample post rehabilitation care and
monitoring for side effects and symptoms that may arise. This can only
be done if Applicant receives treatment at a hospital of his choice and
is well taken care of away from infection related environment. There is
a qualitative difference in the treatment received as an undertrial
prisoner especially in jail barracks and jail hospital and as a citizen
under no restraint. It is seen from the precarious medical condition,
degree of care and monitoring of existing / subsisting ailments from
which the Applicant suffers along with observations for any untoward
complications that may arise altogether clearly justify grant of medical
12 of 17
BA.1836.2026.doc
bail to the Applicant before me in accordance with provisio to Section
45(1) of PMLA, 2002.
15. There is no doubt that discharge summary issued by Breach
Candy Hospital dated 13.07.2026 states that Applicant was discharged
after his hernia repair surgery however it will have to be appreciated in
context of the health condition of Applicant evident from the entire
compilation of medical reports appended on record. The discharge
summary issued by Breach Candy Hospital dated 13.07.2026 cannot be
appreciated in isolation and must be read along with all of Applicant’s
medical reports placed before this Court since they have accurately
charted the course of Applicant’s health condition from November
2022 till date which was appreciated by Court while granting Medical
bail for his surgeries since December 2025.
16. In my considered opinion, though Applicant was discharged
from Breach Candy Hospital on 13.07.2026 after his hernia repair
surgery, it can by no stretch of imagination indicate that he is fit to be
sent back to prison or the hospital attached to the prison. Perusal of
the material on record bring home the conclusion that sickness,
infirmity and health conditions of Applicant are severe and hence
directing Applicant to return to custody or even the prison hospital
upon his discharge, is incompatible with his health conditions and that
it would run the risk of deterioration of his health to the point of no
13 of 17
BA.1836.2026.doc
return in that case. We are otherwise all aware of the jail conditions
and the enormity of congestion in jails.
17. In view of the aforesaid strong circumstances presented by
Applicant’s medical reports and discharge summary, Applicant has
made out a strong case for grant of medical bail.
18. Investigating Officer shall be at the liberty to visit the
hospital / home of Applicant for investigation. Applicant’s supervising
doctors are directed to prepare appropriate reports about the status
and medical condition of Applicant and his availability to co-operate
with the investigation depending on his recovery and apprise the
Investigating Officer about the same within 15 days from today.
19. Applicant shall cooperate and provide all details for
investigation as called upon. The Application of Applicant is primarily
considered on medical grounds at this stage and it is subject to
revocation if he and / or other accused persons do not co-operate with
the investigation. Merely because at this stage unless the entire chain
which is linked is to be traced including the absconding Accused or
there maybe involvement of other parties, keeping the Applicant in jail
in his present condition when he is ready to co-operate cannot be the
answer. Hence, on both counts but with a direction that Applicant's
through their other accused persons shall ensure complete co-
operation with the investigation on all counts and make all disclosures,
14 of 17
BA.1836.2026.doc
the present order is passed.
20. That apart this Court while passing orders on pervious
occasions in so far as the Applicant's medical condition is concerned
has clearly applied its mind and the same is certified by the reports
before this Court. Hence on medical ground, Applicant deserves
enlargement on bail for medical treatment and rehabilitation which
cannot be denied to him in view of his precarious medical condition
and requirement for post surgery rehabilitation. Needless to state that
every 6 months the Applicant will present himself at J.J. Hospital for a
checkup and the Dean of the said hospital shall, through a committee,
examine the status of Applicant’s health parameter and give opinion in
a Report to the prosecution. Prosecution will be at liberty to approach
this Court on the basis on that Report for custody of the Applicant and
for cancellation of his medical bail.
21. In view of the above, Applicant be released on bail on
medical grounds on following conditions:-
(i) Applicant – Ushik Mahesh Gala be released on bail, on
furnishing a P.R. Bond of Rs.2,00,000/- and one or more
sureties in the like amount;
(ii) It is directed that the other accused persons, if any,
whose names shall be provided by the Applicant to the
Investigating Officer, shall attend investigation before the
15 of 17
BA.1836.2026.doc
Investigating Officer on the first and third Monday of every
month from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with all disclosures as
called for by the Investigating Officer initially for a period of
three (3) months from today and thereafter the Applicant
will also join in the investigation along with all the other
accused persons who are directed to be present before the
Investigating Officer as directed or as called for by the
Investigating Officer thereafter. Investigating Officer shall be
at liberty to visit the Applicant’s home with 2 days advanced
notice to enquire about his rehabilitation and keep record of
the same for Court’s information if so required later;
(iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the Court;
(iv) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(v) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of his current address and mobile contact number and / or
change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to
time, as applicable;
(vi) Applicant shall surrender his passport with the
Investigating Officer of the concerned police station;
(vii) Applicant shall not indulge in any activity similar to the
16 of 17
BA.1836.2026.doc
activities on the basis of which the Applicant stands
prosecuted;
(viii) Applicant shall not try to establish communication with
any co-accused or any other person involved directly or
indirectly in similar activities, through any mode of
communication;
(ix) Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
22. Liberty to apply for cancellation of this order to prosecution
in case of any breach of the conditions.
23. Bail Application No.1836 of 2026 is allowed and disposed in
above terms.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
Digitally signed
by AJAY
AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.08.24
11:35:45 +0530
17 of 17
Checking your session…