The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act cannot obstruct bail when an undertrial or convict is medically unfit and cannot be adequately treated in custody. The petitioner, Davinder Singh Nirwal Dev, had sought bail on medical grounds for the second time. The court ruled that humane treatment and the right to health override the statute's stringent bail restrictions in cases of serious medical incapacity.

Section 45 of the PMLA imposes twin conditions before bail can be granted in money-laundering cases: first, the public prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application; and second, the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and will not commit any offence while on bail. These conditions are among the strictest in Indian criminal law and were upheld by the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022).

However, courts have consistently recognised that statutory rigour cannot override fundamental rights, particularly the right to life under Article 21, which includes the right to health and dignified treatment. The Punjab and Haryana HC's ruling in Davinder Singh Nirwal Dev crystallises this position: where a convict or undertrial suffers from a serious ailment that cannot be adequately managed within prison facilities, the twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA cannot serve as an absolute bar to bail.

This is not an abandonment of Section 45 — the court is not saying bail should be freely granted in PMLA cases. Rather, it carves a narrow, well-established exception rooted in Article 21. The principle connects to the broader doctrine that no statute, however stringent, can override constitutional guarantees. For CLAT PG purposes, this ruling sits at the intersection of PMLA bail law, Article 21 jurisprudence, and the judicial power to grant bail on humanitarian grounds despite special legislation.