Naresh Goyal denied medical bail, allowed treatment at hospital of choice

Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal's plea for interim medical bail due to cancer denied by PMLA court, allowed treatment at Tata Memorial Hospital for 2 months.

MUMBAI: A special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court on Thursday rejected Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal’s application for interim medical bail for six months after he was diagnosed with cancer earlier this month. The court, however, permitted the 74-year-old to get admitted at the Tata Memorial Hospital or any other hospital of his choice under an escort for two months. Goyal was also allowed home-cooked food during the period of hospitalisation and doctors treating him have been directed to submit a report to the court twice a month.

Jet Airways founder Naresh Goyal in South Mumbai on Jan 13. (Raju Shinde/HT Photo)

“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,” said special judge MG Deshpande, referring to Goyal’s influence and the potential misuse of liberty if granted bail.

Goyal had broken down in court last month, saying he had ‘lost every hope of life’ and would prefer dying peacefully than living in his present situation. Noting that the way prisoners were treated at JJ Hospital was not sustainable for his health, the court on January 9 permitted him to visit private doctors of his choice for a medical check-up. After receiving reports of private doctors and pursuant to a request made by the special public prosecutor for the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Sunil Gonsalves, the special judge directed the JJ hospital on February 16 to constitute a medical board and submit its report and opinion for the court’s consideration.

On February 21, the board comprised of four experts in cardiology, orthopaedics, general medicine and general surgery informed the court about Goyal’s illness and the state-run hospital’s inability to provide necessary treatment including a gastroenterologist’s opinion as needed.

Referring to the reports of private doctors, the ED strongly proposed transferring the medical care of Goyal to the Tata Memorial Hospital, arguing that there was no confirmed diagnosis of neuro endocrine tumor and tests were required to confirm the disease.

The court, seconding the ED’s opinion, stated that the hospital treated only cancer patients, and was equipped with advanced technology, manpower and knowledge, whereas the private hospitals suggested by Goyal had some limitations.

Advocate Aabad Ponda along with advocate Ameet Naik and advocate Abhishek Kale, representing Goyal, rebuked the suggestion and vehemently argued that citizens have the right to choose and bear the expenses for their preferred medical treatment in a private hospital. “Whose life is at stake? Who has the authority to decide where the accused should seek treatment – himself or the ED?” the advocates asked, praying for interim medical bail. They also intimated the court about Goyal’s inability to bear escort charges due to his critical financial condition.

The court, however, refused to accept the argument regarding Goyal’s inability to pay escort charges.

“Remarkably, the team of a number of esteemed lawyers from the inception until now has not asserted that they have been handling the matters of the accused as a charitable endeavour. This is only to suggest and nothing more, that the applicant is not incapacitated to pay escort charges,” the special judge said, further suggesting that if the applicant indeed faced financial difficulties, he could still access a range of services available at the Tata Memorial Hospital.

Goyal was arrested in September 2023 by the ED in connection with an alleged bank loan fraud worth ₹538 crore. The ED’s case against Goyal is based on a May 3 FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Jet Airways (India) Ltd, Goyal, his wife Anita and former company executive Gaurang Ananda Shetty and unknown public servants and private persons.

According to the ED, Jet Airways had taken a loan from a consortium of 10 banks to meet its operational expenditure and an amount of ₹6,000 crore was still outstanding. “A forensic audit was done on the airlines whereby it was seen that around ₹1,152 crores had been diverted in the guise of consultancy and professional fees and ₹2,547.83 crore had been diverted to a sister concern, namely Jet Lite Limited, to clear its loan,” the ED said.