Davinder Singh Nirwal @ Dev v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026

The petitioner, Davinder Singh Nirwal @ Dev, was 76 years old and was in custody in connection with an Enforcement Case Information Report registered by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The money-laundering proceedings arose from an underlying FIR concerning allegations of smuggling 925 kg of ketamine to China and one tonne of pseudoephedrine to Canada.

The underlying case also involved alleged recovery of 10 kg of pseudoephedrine and 500 grams of intoxicating powder.

This was the petitioner's second bail application before the High Court.

In the present application, the petitioner's counsel specifically confined the submissions to medical grounds and prolonged incarceration, reserving the right to argue bail on merits separately.

The petitioner suffered from several serious and debilitating medical conditions and had undergone open spinal surgery.

It was submitted that the petitioner required continuous specialised medical care which could not adequately be provided within the prison environment.

The petitioner contended that he was not a flight risk, particularly because the documentary evidence was already in the possession of the Enforcement Directorate.

He also offered to comply with stringent conditions and accepted that the bail could be revoked in case of specified serious violations.

The Enforcement Directorate opposed the application and relied upon allegations that the petitioner had evaded summons since 2016 before his arrest.

The ED further alleged that the petitioner had used the name of his absconding son for purchasing properties.

The prosecution also relied upon the petitioner's previous convictions in two other FIRs and a completed sentence under the Prisons Act.

Regarding his medical condition, the ED submitted that the petitioner's spinal surgery and medical care had already been managed by the jail authorities and that he could be shifted to a government hospital if necessary.

The ED also questioned the maintainability of the successive bail application.

The High Court observed that although the ED's reply purported to address the medical grounds, it substantially dealt with the merits and seriousness of the allegations.

The Court therefore confined its consideration to medical grounds and prolonged custody.

The petitioner had already spent more than five years in custody in the present case.

The Court considered various Supreme Court decisions dealing with medical bail, advanced age, prolonged incarceration and the constitutional right to speedy trial.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted interim bail to the 76-year-old petitioner primarily on account of his advanced age, serious medical condition and prolonged incarceration.

The Court emphasised that old age accompanied by serious illness requires particularly careful judicial consideration when the accused is in custody.

The Bench observed that denying bail to an elderly and seriously ill person may become inhumane where adequate treatment cannot meaningfully be provided within prison.

The Court held that while Section 45 PMLA imposes stringent conditions for bail, its proviso itself recognises an exception for a sick or infirm person.

The Court therefore held that the rigours of Section 45 could not become an absolute obstacle where the accused was medically so unfit that treatment inside prison had effectively become a mere formality.

The Court connected the issue with Article 21, observing that the right to life is a fundamental constitutional guarantee and that incarceration must remain consistent with that protection.

The Court also considered the petitioner's more than five years of custody in the present case.

It observed that prolonged incarceration cannot indefinitely continue merely because the prosecution has not been able to conclude the trial.

The Court noted that delays attributable to the inability or inefficiency of the investigating agency cannot automatically justify continued incarceration.

The Court relied upon Supreme Court decisions concerning medical bail, advanced age, prolonged custody and speedy trial.

The Court granted interim bail for the period 11 September 2026 to 21 December 2026.

The petitioner was granted liberty to seek an extension if his health condition did not improve.

The bail was subject to furnishing bail bonds of ₹1,00,000 with one surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

The Court directed the petitioner to surrender after the expiry of the interim bail period.

The Court clarified that the order was based on the peculiar facts of the petitioner and should not be treated as a blanket precedent for every elderly or medically ill accused.

The Court further clarified that the order would have no bearing on the merits of the case or on the case of any co-accused.

Medical condition and personal liberty: The judgment places medical well-being within the broader constitutional framework of Article 21. The Court treated incarceration as subject to constitutional limitations where serious illness makes continued custody particularly harsh.

Section 45 PMLA: The Court did not disregard the stringent bail requirements under PMLA. Instead, it focused on the statutory proviso dealing with a sick or infirm person, recognising that Parliament itself has created an exception within the statutory framework.

Advanced age: The petitioner's age of 76 years was an important circumstance. The Court stressed that advanced age coupled with health problems requires a more careful judicial examination than an ordinary bail application.

Requirement of reasons: One of the significant observations is that before rejecting the bail application of a person above 75 years with health issues, the Court should document its reasons. This strengthens judicial accountability and ensures that the medical circumstances are actually considered.

Adequacy of prison treatment: The judgment indicates that the mere possibility of shifting an inmate to a government hospital does not automatically resolve the issue. The Court must consider whether the accused's actual medical requirements can effectively be addressed while he remains incarcerated.

Prolonged incarceration: The petitioner had already spent more than five years in custody. The Court treated such prolonged detention as an important consideration in light of the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty and speedy trial.

Delay in trial: The Court observed that an accused cannot necessarily be kept behind bars indefinitely because the prosecution has not completed the proceedings. Institutional or investigative difficulties do not automatically justify unlimited pre-trial detention.

Gravity of allegations: The underlying allegations were serious and involved substantial quantities of narcotic substances. However, because the present application was confined to medical grounds and prolonged custody, the Court deliberately avoided making findings on the merits.

Balance of interests: The Court balanced the petitioner's liberty and medical needs against the prosecution's concerns by granting time-bound interim bail rather than unrestricted bail.

Limited precedent: The Court specifically cautioned that its decision should not be treated as a universal rule that every elderly or sick accused must be released on bail. The decision was based upon the petitioner's particular age, medical condition and prolonged custody.

Constitutional significance: The judgment reinforces the principle that special statutes imposing stringent bail requirements continue to operate within the constitutional framework of Article 21.

Overall legal principle: The decision demonstrates that advanced age, serious illness and prolonged incarceration can collectively justify interim bail even in a PMLA case, particularly where the statutory sick/infirm exception and constitutional protections are engaged.