2022 (7) TMI 1467 - HC - Money Laundering

Rejection of bail application - Money Laundering - twin conditions contained in section 45 of 2000 PML Act satisfied or not - HELD THAT - Considering the nature of accusation against the petitioner, the punishment prescribed for the offence under which the charge sheet has been submitted and the fact that the petitioner has already undergone half of the maximum substantive sentence prescribed for the offence, while not inclining to release the petitioner on bail on merit, the petitioner released on interim bail for a period of six months from the date of release. The petitioner shall surrender before the learned trial Court immediately on the expiry of the six months period. The petitioner is released on interim bail subject to conditions imposed - application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application against rejection order of Sessions Judge - Judicial custody since 26.10.2018 - Offence under PML Act - Maximum punishment seven years - Section 45 of PML Act - Twin conditions for bail - Constitutional validity of section 45 - Precedent of Nikesh Tarachand Saha case - Release on interim bail for six months - Bail bond and sureties - Conditions of interim bail - Violation consequences - Disposal of BLAPL.

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment pertains to a bail application filed against the rejection order of the learned Sessions Judge in a case under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act). The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 26.10.2018 and has served three and a half years of substantive sentence. The charge sheet pertains to an offence under section 4 of the PML Act, with a maximum punishment of seven years, of which the petitioner has already served half. The Enforcement Directorate argued against bail, citing ongoing investigation and the presence of sixty-four witnesses in the first charge sheet.

The counsel for the petitioner relied on the case of Nikesh Tarachand Saha versus Union of India, where it was held that section 45(1) of the PML Act, which imposes twin conditions for bail, was deemed unconstitutional as it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In that case, all bail rejection orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded for hearing without the application of the twin conditions under section 45 of the PML Act.

Considering the nature of the accusation, the prescribed punishment, and the time served by the petitioner, the court decided not to grant bail on merit but opted to release the petitioner on interim bail for six months. The petitioner was directed to surrender before the trial court at the end of the interim bail period. The court imposed a bail bond of Rs.2,00,000/- along with two local solvent sureties each for the same amount, subject to additional terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the trial court. The petitioner was prohibited from contacting prosecution witnesses, tampering with evidence, engaging in criminal activities, and was required to appear before the trial court on all scheduled dates during the interim bail period.

Any violation of the terms and conditions of the interim bail would result in its cancellation. The Bail Application was disposed of with the issuance of an urgent certified copy as per rules, concluding the judgment on the matter.