9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 1218 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - generation of illegal income - extorting crores of Rupees from different rich people by blackmailing them to get their video footage containing objectionable and inappropriate photographs viral - applicability of provision of Section 45(1) of the PMLA - HELD THAT - Undeniably, the provisions as to bail are founded on the philosophy of protecting the most precious individual liberty of a person which is guaranteed under Article 21 of our sacred Constitution, but grant or refusal of bail to a person accused of offence is the discretion of the Court, however, such discretion should not be arbitrary or whimsical. Article 21 of the Constitution of India always reminds that the personal liberty is paramount and sacrosanct and no person shall be deprived of his personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. An accused person who is sick in terms of proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA can be granted bail without insisting upon him the strict compliance of the conditions enumerated therein, but who can be considered as a sick or what would be the level of sickness that would bring the accused within the parameters of sick has not been precisely defined or explained either in the PMLA or in any other act governing the provisions of bail. Normally, sick means suffering from disease or illness or unwell or ill and one who needs medication, but mere sickness, such as suffering from fever or illness which can be treated in the jail without any difficulty cannot be considered as sick so as to entitle the accused to bail in view of the exception to Section 45(1) of the PMLA. This Court is of the considered view that the sickness which are not only life threatening, but also serious and requires special medical attention and which the jail authority cannot provide in the jail would normally be considered as a ground for grant of bail to an accused by relaxing the strict compliance of Section 45(1) of the PMLA by giving benefit of the proviso appended thereto. Granting bail on mere sickness by extending the proviso appended to Section 45(1) of the PMLA will render the aforesaid proviso otiose. The pre trial detention of the Petitioner for near about ten months with uncertainty prevailing about execution of NBWA against coaccused affecting the commencement of the trial and, thereby, conclusion of trial being not possible in near future and regard being had to the nature of sickness of the Petitioner which allows him to obviate the rigor of compliance of the provision of Section 45(1) of the PMLA by way of relaxation, this Court considers that the Petitioner has made out a case for grant of bail. The bail application of the petitioner stands allowed and the petitioner may be released on bail subject to conditions imposed.
Issues Involved:
1. Bail Application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences under PMLA. 2. Consideration of bail based on the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA due to the petitioner's sickness. 3. Examination of whether the petitioner's sickness qualifies for bail under the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA. 4. Evaluation of the petitioner's risk of flight, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses. Summary of Judgment: 1. Bail Application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences under PMLA: The petitioner sought bail in connection with Complainant Case (PMLA) Case No.10 of 2022 under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which is punishable under Section 4 PMLA. The petitioner and others were accused of extorting crores of rupees from wealthy individuals through blackmail involving objectionable videos, leading to the registration of an FIR and subsequent investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). 2. Consideration of bail based on the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA due to the petitioner's sickness: The petitioner argued for bail on the grounds of sickness, invoking the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA. The Court acknowledged the importance of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and the role of bail in preventing pre-trial punishment. 3. Examination of whether the petitioner's sickness qualifies for bail under the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA: The Court examined whether the petitioner's sickness warranted relaxation of the twin conditions under Section 45(1) of PMLA. The Court noted that the proviso allows for bail on humanitarian and medical grounds but must be exercised judiciously. The Court considered the petitioner's "Tracheostomy" condition, which required hospital admission for removal, as a serious ailment qualifying for bail under the proviso. 4. Evaluation of the petitioner's risk of flight, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses: The Court assessed the petitioner's risk of flight, tampering with evidence, and influencing witnesses. It found the petitioner did not pose a flight risk, could not tamper with evidence as the complaint had been filed, and could be prevented from influencing witnesses through appropriate conditions. The petitioner had been in custody for nearly ten months, and the trial's commencement was uncertain due to the co-accused's pending arrest. Conclusion: The Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions including surrendering his passport, appearing before the Court and ED as required, and not committing any offences while on bail. The bail was granted on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.2,00,000/- with two local solvent sureties. The Court clarified that the observations made were solely for the purpose of adjudicating the bail application and not a final expression on the case's merits.
|
