Granting Bail to Amitabh Jhunjhunwala: A Review of the Delhi High Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Amitabh Jhunjhunwala, a former senior executive of the Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group, who is implicated in a money laundering investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The case, titled Amitabh Jhunjhunwala v Directorate of Enforcement, was presided over by Justice Madhu Jain.
The Court’s Rationale
Justice Madhu Jain’s decision was significantly influenced by Jhunjhunwala’s health condition, which the Court determined fell under the ‘sick or infirm’ clause of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Court noted, “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.”
Case Background
Jhunjhunwala’s bail plea emerged from an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) linked to two Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) First Information Reports (FIRs). These FIRs involve allegations of fund misappropriation concerning Reliance Commercial Finance Ltd (RCFL) and Reliance Home Finance Ltd (RHFL). The ED has accused Jhunjhunwala and others of disbursing ₹15,933.65 crore to shell companies and other entities, which were subsequently used to layer and divert funds.
Medical Grounds for Bail
Jhunjhunwala, who was taken into custody on April 15, 2026, sought bail primarily due to medical issues, including a D-11 vertebral compression fracture, spinal problems, osteoporosis, neurological symptoms, and a history of coronary artery disease. While the ED contended that Jhunjhunwala was receiving adequate medical care in custody, the High Court emphasized the importance of viewing his health conditions collectively rather than individually.
Legal Interpretations
The High Court highlighted the significance of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, which uses the terms “sick” and “infirm” disjunctively. Justice Jain stated, “The provision does not qualify either expression by the words ‘terminal’, ‘irreversible’, ‘imminently life-threatening’ or ‘requiring surgery’. The discretion conferred by the proviso is undoubtedly required to be exercised judiciously; however, while considering such an application, a Court cannot read into the statutory provision a condition which is not contained therein.”
Legal Representation
Jhunjhunwala was represented by a legal team comprising Senior Advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Rebecca John, along with advocates Sowjhanya Shankaran, Apoorv Agarwal, Ravi Sharma, Gaurav Sarkar, Sanchit Agarwal, Abhishek Jaiswal, Mudit Jain, Siddharth Satija, Sriharsh Raj, Akash Sachan, Aayush Goswami, and Raghav Gupta. On the other hand, the ED’s representation included Senior Advocate Zoheb Hossain, Panel Counsel Vivek Gurnani, and advocates Pranjal Tripathi, Kanishk Maurya, Prakhar Bharadwaj, and Siddharth Bajaj.
