9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 405 - DSC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of Bail - rigours of twin conditions under Sec.45 (1)(i) and (ii) of the PML Act - HELD THAT - The case of accused No.5 is qualified under Sec.45(1)(ii) of the PML Act. Once the conclusion is arrived on merit that, the applicant is entitled to bail, it is not proper to suspend/stay the said order for such a long time of three weeks by making the order fruitless. Same will cause hardship to the applicant, who is held entitled on merit for the liberty. Already stringent conditions with heavy bail of ₹ 30 lakhs has been directed against the accused No.5. It is necessary to note that, accused No.5 was previously on temporary bail on medical grounds as per order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court. ED could not point out a single instance that he had misused his liberty during the said period. Application dismissed.
Issues:
1. Application to suspend the order granting bail to accused No.5 for three weeks. 2. Jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to stay his own order of grant of bail. 3. Entitlement of the accused to bail under Sec.45(1)(ii) of the PML Act. Issue 1: Application to Suspend Bail Order The Special Judge under the PML Act heard an application by the Special Public Prosecutor (S.P.P.) to suspend the order granting bail to accused No.5 for three weeks to challenge the said order before the High Court. The application was opposed by the Senior Counsel, citing recent observations made by the High Court in another case. The Judge noted that the bail application was decided on merit after exhaustive discussions regarding the entitlement of the applicant and the conditions under Sec.45(1)(i) and (ii) of the PML Act. The Judge emphasized that the applicant was entitled to bail on merit, and suspending the order for three weeks would cause hardship to the accused, who had already been subjected to stringent bail conditions. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge The Judge examined the jurisdiction of the Sessions Judge to stay his own order of grant of bail. Referring to a previous case, the Judge highlighted that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not empower the Sessions Judge to stay the operation of his bail order. The Judge emphasized that the High Court, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., can stay the operation of a bail order to prevent abuse of process or to meet the ends of justice. It was concluded that the Sessions Judge could not assume jurisdiction to stay his own bail order, and the petition challenging the order was maintainable. The Judge found that the Sessions Judge had not justified the order by recording reasons for suspending his own order. Issue 3: Entitlement to Bail under Sec.45(1)(ii) of the PML Act After a detailed examination of the merit of the bail application, the Judge determined that the case of accused No.5 qualified under Sec.45(1)(ii) of the PML Act. The Judge noted that the accused had already been on temporary bail on medical grounds, during which he did not misuse his liberty. Considering that the accused was entitled to bail on merit and had complied with previous bail conditions, the Judge found it unnecessary to suspend the bail order for three weeks. The Judge highlighted that if the Enforcement Directorate (ED) preferred an appeal and it was allowed, the accused would have to return to jail, as he had done previously when temporary bail was declined by the Supreme Court. In conclusion, the Special Judge rejected the application to suspend the bail order, emphasizing the entitlement of the accused to bail on merit and the lack of justification for suspending the order for three weeks. The Judge highlighted the stringent bail conditions imposed on the accused and the absence of any instances of misuse of liberty. The decision aimed to meet the ends of justice without causing unnecessary hardship to the accused.
|
