Aurobindo Pharma Director gets bail in Delhi Excise Policy Case
New Delhi: In a major respite to Aurobindo Pharma director P Sarath Chandra Reddy, the Delhi High Court has granted him bail in connection with the Enforcement Directorate’s money laundering probe into the Delhi excise policy on account of his medical condition.
A single-judge bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma on Monday admitted Reddy to bail, subject to him furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh, two sureties of the like amount along with certain other conditions. These include that Reddy shall surrender his passport and shall not travel without prior permission of the trial court.
Medical Dialogues team had earlier reported that Reddy was arrested on November 10, 2022 under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act following long questioning with them at the Enforcement Directorate headquarters.
ED in its arguments against Reddy had submitted that it is amply evident that he had actively planned and conspired with various business owners and politicians and indulged in unfair market practices to gain undue advantage in the Delhi Excise Policy, 2021-22.
Last year, in November, Reddy along with other businessmen Binoy Babu was sent to judicial custody till December 5, 2022 by the Rouse Avenue Court.
Lately, on Monday, Reddy got court relief and he was granted bail after senior advocate Vikas Pahwa, appearing for him argued that though initially bail had been sought on merits, however, in the interregnum, the health condition of his client had deteriorated and the medical record submitted shows that he is “sick and infirm”.
Pahwa submitted that while there is no specific averment on granting bail on medical grounds in the regular bail plea, he said that the HC “may entertain the request for enlarging the petitioner on bail on medical grounds in view of his health condition”.
An additional affidavit regarding Reddy’s medical condition was filed containing medical records including a discharge summary from Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital, where Reddy was admitted between February 24-27 wherein he was diagnosed with “Bilateral Lower Limb Radiculopathy”.
The order records that while Reddy was on interim bail he was examined at Apollo Hospital on May 2 and was advised “absolute bed rest for four days” as well as “physiotherapy lumbar region” and a follow-up on May 10.
Meanwhile, additional solicitor general SV Raju representing the ED confirmed that a copy of the additional affidavit filed by Reddy indicating his medical condition had been supplied to the agency which had been “verified and found to be genuine”.
Raju added that the law on admitting an accused on bail on account of being sick or infirm is well settled and if the HC is satisfied an appropriate order may be passed. As per a recent media report in The Indian Express, the ASG also said Reddy during the interim bail period had “not influenced any witness or tampered with any evidence”.
After perusing Reddy’s medical records, the court in its order, said;
“It is pertinent to mention that the respondent department has also not brought any material on record to show that the petitioner is a flight risk. It is also a settled proposition that the right to life is a facet of fundamental rights enshrined by the Constitution. The right to live with dignity includes the right to live a healthy life. The person who is sick or infirm has a right to have adequate and effective treatment. Though jails and designated hospitals provide good basic treatment, we cannot expect them to provide specialised treatment and monitoring as required in the present case. The last medical report of the petitioner dated 03.05.2023 shows that the petitioner is in a bad state and can be put into the category of sick/infirm.”
It observed;
“This court makes it clear that this order has been passed in view of the medical condition of the petitioner and therefore shall not be taken as a precedent. It is also made clear that this court has not gone into the merits of the case and no expression made herein shall tantamount to be an expression on the merits of the case.”
