2021 (6) TMI 804 - SC - Money Laundering

Bail application - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - possession of moveable and immoveable assets - misuse of official position - Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act - HELD THAT - Continuing with the detention of the appellant to face the trial in the present case would not serve the cause of justice. Even if the appellant had earlier not appeared, the fact of the matter remains that he had faced trial in the P.C. Act matter and his appeal remains pending. The High Court, in the impugned order dated 25.11.2020, declined the bail at the given stage but directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial on day-to-day basis and also gave liberty to the appellant to apply for bail afresh, if trial did not conclude within six months from the date of production of copy of its order. The fact remains that this appeal is being considered today by this Court only after six months from the date of order of the High Court but, what to say of conclusion, the trial is practically at the very initial stage with even the statement of the first prosecution witness remaining incomplete. Looking to the nature of case and the witnesses to be examined, the trial and is bound to take time. On the other hand, the appellant is said to be in custody since 27.11.2019. While setting aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2020, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and necessary by the Trial Court - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Bail application rejection by High Court in a case under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Consideration of trial progress and nature of accusations for granting bail.
3. Direction for expeditious trial proceedings and liberty to apply for bail afresh.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, an accused in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, challenged the High Court's order rejecting his bail application in a matter related to offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA Act. The appellant was in custody since 27.11.2019 and sought relief from the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision dated 25.11.2020.

2. The appellant's case involved allegations of money laundering and possession of disproportionate assets. The High Court directed expeditious trial proceedings in the case while denying bail at that stage. The appellant's counsel argued for bail, emphasizing the early stage of the trial and lack of misuse of liberty by the appellant. The respondent, represented by the ASG, highlighted the seriousness of the accusations and the appellant's previous non-appearance, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants. However, the trial was still at an initial stage with only one prosecution witness examined.

3. After considering the submissions and examining the case details, the Supreme Court found that the continued detention of the appellant was not serving the cause of justice. Despite the High Court's order and the pending trial, the appellant's detention was deemed unnecessary. The Court acknowledged the slow progress of the trial and the appellant's custody since 2019. Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and granting bail to the appellant on suitable terms and conditions, including cooperation in the trial proceedings and property restrictions.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues of bail application rejection, trial progress evaluation for bail consideration, and the direction for expeditious trial proceedings with the liberty to apply for bail afresh, as addressed in the Supreme Court's judgment.