Supreme Court Reserves Orders In Punjab Minister Sanjeev Arora's Bail Plea On Medical grounds In PMLA Case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved orders on the plea filed by Punjab Minister and Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Sanjeev Arora. He has sought bail on medical grounds and permission to undergo treatment at Fortis Hospital, Gurugram or Medanta Hospital, Gurugram instead of AIIMS, New Delhi, in a money laundering case investigated by the Directorate of Enforcement.

The court had, on July 20, directed that Arora be shifted from Fortis Hospital, Gurugram, to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, for an independent medical evaluation in view of his plea that he was suffering from serious cardiac ailments requiring urgent medical attention. The AIIMS Medical Board was directed to examine him and submit its report to the Court within 2 days.

The case stems from the ED's money laundering investigation into Hampton Sky Realty Ltd. (HSRL) where Arora was the promoter and former Chairman and Managing Director. The agency alleges that HSRL fraudulently claimed export proceeds of about ₹102.5 crore through bogus mobile phone exports to UAE-based entities using shell suppliers and forged invoices.

A bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and N. Kotiswar Singh reserved its orders after hearing the parties. 

Relying on the AIIMS Medical Board's report, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi submitted that although Arora had been described as "clinically stable", the Board itself had advised coronary angiography for further evaluation, making it inappropriate to send him back to jail.

Taking the Court through the medical records, he pointed to Arora's history of diabetes, hypertension, renal transplant, heart failure, pulmonary embolism and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40%, contending that these findings warranted immediate medical attention.

Questioning why the procedure had not already been performed, he argued, "What's the point of saying 'advised'? Advised when today, tomorrow or after ten days?" He further submitted, "Today he is stable, but what is going to happen tomorrow? He is not a person who is 20 years of age."

Emphasising Arora's right to choose his treating hospital, Rohatgi argued that Article 21 entitled him to receive treatment at a private hospital of his choice under police custody.

"I am entitled under Article 21 to be treated in my own hospital, by my own doctor," he submitted, adding that he was "not asking to be released" and that "a policeman can remain outside the hospital." Referring to Supreme Court precedents, he contended that "a patient is entitled to be treated in a hospital of his own choice" and argued that there was no justification for denying treatment at a private hospital merely because AIIMS was a government institution.

Opposing the plea, ASG S.V. Raju appearing for ED, submitted that the AIIMS Medical Board had categorically found Arora to be clinically stable and had discharged him with advice for angiography as and when medically required.

He assured the Bench that the authorities would ensure all necessary treatment was provided, stating, "Either today or tomorrow we're taking him for angiography. If the condition is not good, the hospital will say so and give him all medical facilities." Raju further argued that ordinary prisoners are routinely treated in government hospitals and that Arora could not claim a special privilege merely because he preferred a private medical facility.

During the hearing, the Bench also questioned the necessity of directing treatment at a private hospital when AIIMS was prepared to provide the required care. Observing that the petitioner would continue to remain in custody while receiving treatment, the Court ultimately reserved its verdict on the plea.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Puneet Bali, AOR Aditya Soni