'Not Exhibited Any Alarming Symptoms': Mumbai Court Refuses Interim Bail To Jet Airways' Naresh Goyal But Permits 2 Months Hospitalization

A Special Court PMLA Court in Mumbai today refused to grant interim bail on medical grounds to Naresh Goyal, accused in a Rs. 538 Crores money laundering case. The court however, allowed him to be hospitalized for two months to avail cancer treatment.

Special Judge MG Deshpande observed –

“Currently, neither private doctors nor the Medical Board has asserted that this sickness is life-threatening. Moreover, the health condition of accused No.1 (Goyal) has not exhibited any alarming symptoms. There is a likelihood of positive recovery and complete eradication of the Neuro Endocrine Tumor with prompt and proper treatment for accused No.1. In this situation, I am of the opinion that the alleged sickness of accused No.1, which holds a strong hope of recovery, does not meet the qualifications under the First Proviso to Sec.45 (1) of the PML Act to warrant immediate interim bail.”

The court allowed Goyal to be hospitalized in Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital or any other hospital of his choice at his own expense.

Goyal, arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on September 1, 2023, faces charges related to an alleged fraud of Rs. 538 Crores, as per the FIR filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) based on a complaint by Canara Bank. The Bombay High Court in November 2023 rejected his plea challenging the arrest after which he approached the sessions court seeking bail. Goyal is currently lodged in Arthur Road Central Prison, Mumbai.

Naresh Goyal had initially sought bail on December 08, 2023, citing various grounds including medical conditions and age. Subsequently, the present application was filed on February 15, 2024 for interim medical bail for specialized treatment and investigations. The medical report by JJ Hospital diagnosed Neuroendocrine Tumors and stated that essential treatment was unavailable at JJ Hospital.

Senior Advocate Aabad Ponda for Goyal submitted that Goyal's wife is already battling cancer, and his sickness also falls under the ambit of the First Proviso to Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). He argued that Goyal's financial condition is bad, making it impossible for him to afford escort charges, thus advocating for interim bail instead of hospitalization with an escort.

Special Public Prosecutor Sunil Gonsalves for Enforcement Directorate suggested transferring Goyal's medical care to Tata Memorial Cancer Hospital but opposed interim bail, citing his alleged involvement in money laundering, particularly with public funds.

Ponda referenced the case of Satyendra Kumar Jain vs. Directorate of Enforcement, arguing that individuals have the right to choose and fund their preferred medical treatment in a private hospital. He questioned the ED's authority to dictate otherwise and emphasized the urgency of Goyal's medical condition, pressing for interim bail.

The court examined the medical reports emphasizing the necessity of prompt treatment for Goyal's diagnosed condition. While acknowledging the seriousness of the illness, the court deemed that it did not meet the qualifications for immediate interim bail under the law.

The court outlined Goyal's significant role in Jet Airways (India) Ltd. (JIL), noting his hands-on involvement in decision-making and control over Board decisions. It highlighted his alleged involvement in diverting funds and perpetrating money laundering schemes, as revealed in the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and Prosecution Complaint.

The court relied on forensic audit reports outlining the modus operandi of money laundering through the diversion of funds, underscoring the seriousness of the economic offences involving public funds. It opined that there is a risk of Goyal influencing the investigation's integrity if granted liberty.

“It is crucial to clarify that the court's denial of interim bail is not a refusal of medical aid; rather, it is a measure to prevent potential abuse of the investigative process”, the court stated.

Addressing the issue of financial constraints, the court said that Goyal has access to high-cost medical services and could afford the associated expenses, escort charges etc.

However, the court clarified that rejection of this application does not preclude Goyal from making a similar plea in the future under different circumstances.

Case no. – PMLA Special Case No. 1728 of 2023

Case Title – Naresh Goyal v. Directorate of Enforcement