9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 960 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - schedule offences - siphoning off of funds - constitutional validity of twin conditions prescribed for release on bail as per Section 45(1) of the PML Act, 2002 - HELD THAT - It reveals that two other co-accused persons, namely, Pradeep Kumar Sethy and Jyoti Prakash Jay Prakash, whose release on bail has been referred by the Petitioner were granted on bail upon reliance of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of NIKESH TARACHAND SHAH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 2017 (11) TMI 1336 - SUPREME COURT , wherein the Supreme Court held the twin conditions prescribed for release on bail as per Section 45(1) of the PML Act, 2002 to be unconstitutional as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The present Petitioner is inside custody since 30.5.2013 relating to Kharavela Nagar P.S. Case No.44 of 2013 and in respect of the present case since 16.10.2017. It is admitted by the parties that despite such long detention of the Petitioner inside custody, the trial has not commenced yet. Thus keeping in view the period of detention of the Petitioner inside custody, the delay in trial, release of other two co-accused persons, namely, Pradeep Kumar Sethy and Jyoti Prakash Jay Prakash as well as the observations rendered by this Court and other High Courts with regard to applicability of the provisions of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002, it is directed to release the Petitioner on bail - Bail application dismissed.
Issues:
Application for bail under Section 439, Cr.P.C. in connection with Crl. Misc. (PMLA) Case No. 34 of 2016 pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bhubaneswar. Analysis: 1. The application for bail under Section 439, Cr.P.C. was filed by the Petitioner in connection with Crl. Misc. (PMLA) Case No. 34 of 2016 pending in the court of the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Bhubaneswar. The Petitioner was one of the seven accused persons in the case, facing allegations of active involvement in money laundering offenses along with the principal accused. The Petitioner's role as a Director and Finance Manager in two companies involved in financial transactions with false promises of high returns was highlighted in the case. The Petitioner's previous bail application had been rejected by the Court. 2. The counsel for the Petitioner argued that two other co-accused persons had been granted bail based on the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India, which declared certain conditions under Section 45(1) of the PML Act unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's observations emphasized the need for compelling state interest in applying provisions like Section 45 and the violation of fundamental rights if such interest is absent. 3. The Court referred to a specific case where it held that the amendment to Section 45 of the PML Act did not revive the twin conditions for granting bail that had been declared unconstitutional. The Court reiterated the importance of ensuring that the provisions of Section 45 do not violate the constitutional rights of the accused, especially concerning personal liberty. 4. Considering the prolonged detention of the Petitioner without the trial commencing, the release of other co-accused persons on bail, and the interpretations of Section 45 by various High Courts, the Court directed the release of the Petitioner on bail. The bail amount was set at ?1,00,000 with specific conditions regarding sureties, non-involvement in other offenses, non-interference with witnesses, and evidence tampering. 5. The Court's decision to grant bail to the Petitioner was based on the circumstances of the case, the delay in trial proceedings, and the interpretations of Section 45 of the PML Act. The order for bail was issued with strict conditions to ensure compliance and prevent any interference with the legal process. 6. The judgment highlighted the legal principles regarding bail applications in cases involving money laundering offenses and the significance of upholding constitutional rights, especially in matters concerning personal liberty and fair trial procedures. The Court's decision was influenced by previous rulings and interpretations of relevant legal provisions, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach in such cases.
|
