2023 (12) TMI 956 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - grant of bail - whether the period of house arrest cannot be taken into consideration for computing the total period of custody of the Petitioner and it needs to be excluded? - HELD THAT - It is by now well settled and recognized principle of law that, prolonged custody amounts to infringement or violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India of an accused. There is no debate that, incarceration in custody for long period without trial or completion of trial affects personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of an accused. In the present case, as per the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, admittedly the Petitioner is in custody for more than five years and eight months. The trial Court has not yet framed charge in the case and the likelihood of completion of trial of the Petitioner in the present case within reasonable time is very bleak The maximum sentence prescribed under Section 3 of the PMLA is 7 years. The period of incarceration undergone by the Petitioner has exceeded the substantial part of the prescribed sentence. It appears that, the Petitioner has already completed 3/4 of his sentence, if convicted and sentenced for minimum punishment of 7 years. The fact on record remains that, the Petitioner is in custody/house arrest for last more than five years and eight months for an offence wherein the maximum punishment prescribed is seven years. The Petitioner is released on bail during the pendency of the present Petition on fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Bail application in a money laundering case where the petitioner has been in custody for over five years and eight months without trial.

Summary:

The petitioner, arrested for money laundering, has been in custody for over five years and eight months without the trial court framing charges. The petitioner sought bail, citing the unlikelihood of a timely trial. The respondent challenged previous orders granting house arrest, which were upheld by the Supreme Court. The respondent argued that house arrest should not count towards total custody time, but the court disagreed, noting that prolonged custody violates the accused's constitutional rights. Referring to precedent, the court highlighted that extended custody without trial infringes on the right to speedy trial. Considering the petitioner's lengthy custody exceeding three-fourths of the maximum sentence, the court granted bail with specified conditions, including a personal recognizance bond and restrictions on leaving the court's jurisdiction.