Delhi High Court Grants Medical Bail To Former Reliance Executive Amitabh Jhunjhunwala PMLA Case

On 22 September, the Delhi High Court granted regular bail to former Reliance executive Amitabh Jhunjhunwala in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case concerning the alleged diversion and layering of Rs. 15,933.65 crore through shell and group entities.

Justice Madhu Jain granted the bail on medical grounds, holding that he fell within the expression “sick or infirm” under Section 45(1) of the PMLA. The Bench held:

“Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner falls within the expression “sick or infirm” occurring in the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. The medical record, when considered cumulatively, discloses a condition which materially affects the petitioner's physical functioning and requires structured and continuing medical care. The Court is therefore of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the statutory exception.”

The Enforcement Directorate's case arose from two CBI FIRs concerning Reliance Home Finance Ltd. (RHFL) and Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd. (RCFL). The investigation concerns the alleged diversion and layering of Rs. 15,933.65 crore through shell and group entities after RHFL and RCFL raised funds from lenders and investors.

The authorities arrested Jhunjhunwala on 15 April 2026 and remanded him to judicial custody on 20 April. The prosecution complaint was filed on 12 June 2026.

Before the High Court, Jhunjhunwala submitted that he suffered from a D-11 vertebral fracture, spinal problems, osteoporosis and cardiac disease, requiring specialised and continuous treatment. The ED opposed bail and relied on the RML Medical Board's report dated 8 July, which described the fracture as healed and stated that he was receiving treatment in custody.

The Bench noted that Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital records dated 6 and 19 August continued to record the D-11 fracture and recommended specialised treatment, including surgery if symptoms persisted. The records also advised bracing, physiotherapy and supervised rehabilitation.

It held that Section 45(1) PMLA ordinarily imposes twin conditions for bail but creates an exception for a person who is “sick or infirm”. It rejected the argument that the exception applies only where a person's condition has become irreversible or imminently life-threatening. It observed:

“This Court is also unable 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. Such an interpretation would unduly narrow the expression “sick or infirm” and would effectively add words to the statutory provision. 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.”

Accordingly, the High Court granted Jhunjhunwala bail on medical grounds on a Rs. 1 lakh personal bond with two sureties of Rs. 1 lakh each. The conditions include surrender of his passport, no travel abroad without the Court's permission, appearance before the Trial Court and no contact with witnesses or tampering with evidence.

For Petitioner: Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Rebecca John, Sr. Adv., Ms. Sowjhanya Shankaran, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Mr. Ravi Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Sarkar, Mr. Sanchit Agarwal, Mr. Abhishek Jaiswal, Mr. Mudit Jain, Mr. Siddharth Satija, Mr. Ravi Sharma, Mr. Sriharsh Raj, Mr. Akash Sachan, Mr. Aayush Goswami and Mr. Raghav Gupta, Advs.

For Respondent: Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi, Mr. Kanishk Maurya, Mr, Prakhar Bharadwaj and Mr. Siddharth Bajaj, Advs.