2019 (4) TMI 1854 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - Grant of Interim Bail - Present applications seeking interim bail are based primarily on two grounds i.e. keeping in view the present Covid-19 pandemic and the overcrowding in jail, thereby social distancing not being maintained and secondly, the petitioner claims parity with the co-accused on the ground that they have been released, however, the second issue would be relevant while hearing the regular bail applications. HELD THAT - This Court in terms of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court is required to decide the interim bail applications on its merit as the regular bail applications of the petitioner cannot be decided at the moment. In the interim bail applications, the pleas taken by the petitioner are about the risk involved to him due to the prevailing infections due to spread of Covid-19 pandemic in the country, particularly, in view of the fact that the petitioner is aged 59 years of age is vulnerable and being a foreign national has compromised immunity level as per the climatic conditions of this country. The petitioner also states that the bail applications of the petitioner are pending since long and that the other co-accused has been released. As regards the apprehension of the petitioner being infected by Covid-19 pandemic, it may be noted that the petitioner is lodged in separate cell with only two other prisoners and thus, is not in a Barrack or dormitory where there are number of prisons. It is not the case of the petitioner that any of the two inmates residing with him are suffering from Covid-19 pandemic. Hence, the apprehension of the petitioner also because of the vulnerable age and overcrowding in jail that he is likely to contact Covid-19 which may be detrimental to his health, is unfounded. As regards the other co-accused having been released as noted above in the arguments of the learned counsel for the CBI and Enforcement Directorate, Rajiv Saxena and Sushen Mohan Gupta have not been charge sheeted as accused in the CBI case and not arrested till date by the CBI - As regards Sushen Mohan Gupta is concerned, the order granting bail to this accused by the learned Special Judge has already been challenged by the Enforcement Directorate before this Court. Further, though Rajiv Saxena was deported, he has roots in India and thus the learned Special Judge held that there was no apprehension of his fleeing away from justice and was not a flight risk - As regards the petitioner is concerned, despite being a British national, petitioner has not been in that country for the last 6-7 years and had to be extradited from Dubai after an inquiry. On knowing about arrest in Italy, the petitioner fled to Dubai. The petitioner is thus a flight risk and also has no roots in the society. Application dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Interim bail application due to COVID-19 pandemic.
2. Parity with co-accused.
3. Flight risk and lack of deep-rooted connections in India.
4. Health concerns and overcrowding in Tihar Jail.
5. Delay in trial and ongoing investigations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interim Bail Application Due to COVID-19 Pandemic:
The petitioner sought interim bail citing the COVID-19 pandemic and overcrowding in Tihar Jail, arguing that social distancing could not be maintained. The petitioner emphasized his age (59 years) and low immunity, claiming vulnerability to the virus. The court noted that the petitioner was lodged in a cell with only two other inmates, and there was no case of COVID-19 among them. The court found the apprehension of contracting COVID-19 unfounded, given the prison's measures to prevent the virus's spread.

2. Parity with Co-Accused:
The petitioner claimed parity with co-accused Rajiv Saxena and Sushen Mohan Gupta, who were granted bail. The court observed that Rajiv Saxena was an approver and was granted bail due to his medical condition (cancer) and roots in India, making him not a flight risk. Sushen Mohan Gupta, though a foreign national, had roots in India, and his bail order was under challenge. The court held that the petitioner's situation was different as he had no deep-rooted connections in India and was considered a flight risk.

3. Flight Risk and Lack of Deep-Rooted Connections in India:
The court emphasized that the petitioner, a British national, had not been in the UK for the last 6-7 years and had to be extradited from Dubai. The petitioner fled to Dubai upon learning about the arrest in Italy. The court concluded that the petitioner posed a flight risk and had no roots in the society, thus not qualifying for bail on this ground.

4. Health Concerns and Overcrowding in Tihar Jail:
The petitioner argued that the overcrowding in Tihar Jail posed a health risk due to COVID-19. The court noted that the petitioner was housed in a separate cell with only two other inmates and that the jail authorities had taken adequate measures to prevent the virus's spread. The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim of health risk due to overcrowding.

5. Delay in Trial and Ongoing Investigations:
The petitioner cited the delay in trial and ongoing investigations as grounds for bail, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Baba Vs. State of Maharashtra, where bail was granted due to trial delay under TADA. The court noted that the charge sheet had been filed by CBI and the Enforcement Directorate, with further investigations pending. The court held that the delay in trial would be considered during regular bail hearings and did not warrant interim bail at this stage.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the interim bail applications, stating that the petitioner did not qualify for release under the criteria set by the High Powered Committee due to being a foreign national, involved in multiple cases, and facing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The court emphasized that the observations made were not final and would not affect the trial or regular bail hearings.

← Previous Next →