9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 1418 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - alleged AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter scam - accused of being a middleman who had facilitated bribes to Indian officials to secure a deal for the supply of 12 AW-101 helicopters - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that while Section 45 of PMLA imposes stringent conditions for the grant of bail constitutional courts including the Hon ble Supreme Court have also emphasized time and again that this provision cannot be interpreted in a manner to confine the accused in judicial custody for an indefinite period of time. The present case presents an exceptional situation where the applicant has already been in custody for over six years and two months yet the trial has not even commenced due to the incomplete investigation. Such prolonged incarceration without any foreseeable conclusion of trial would infringe upon the applicant s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 436A of the Cr.P.C. is a statutory safeguard designed to prevent excessive and disproportionate pre-trial detention. It provides that an accused who has undergone detention for a period equivalent to one-half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence shall ordinarily be released on bail unless the court for reasons recorded in writing directs otherwise. In the context of offences under PMLA where the maximum sentence is ordinarily seven years the one-half threshold would be three and a half years. Although the proviso to Section 436A of Cr.P.C. allows the court to extend the period of detention beyond the one-half threshold based on the facts of the case yet such extended detention cannot be indefinite and the Courts must assess the necessity of continued incarceration in light of the specific facts the stage of the trial and the overall interests of justice. In V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate 2024 (9) TMI 1497 - SUPREME COURT it was observed that existence of proceeds of crime at the time of the trial of the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA can be proved only if the scheduled offence is established in the prosecution of the scheduled offence. Thus even if the trial of the case under PMLA proceeds it cannot be finally decided unless the trial of scheduled offences concludes. Applying the said principle to the present case this Court observes that the trial has not begun either in the case pertaining to scheduled offence or in the case under PMLA. In this Court s opinion the prolonged incarceration of the accused of about six years and two months and the fact that investigation is not yet complete and trial has not yet begun and there are more than 100 witness to be examined in this case would entitle him to grant of regular bail thereby overriding the statutory bar under Section 45 of PMLA and proviso to Section 436A of Cr.P.C. Considering the period of incarceration of about six years and two months undergone by the applicant and in view of the fact that he has also been granted bail in the case pertaining to predicate offence by the Hon ble Supreme Court on the ground that the investigation has not been completed and the trial has not even begun and considering that there seems to be no possibility of trial in this case concluding too within the remaining duration of the maximum prescribed sentence under Section 4 of PMLA inasmuch as the same has not even begun as of now this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant on furnishing a personal bond and surety in the sum of Rs. 5, 00, 000/- each and on surrendering the passport before the learned Trial Court which be not released without permission of this Court considering that investigation qua the present applicant is still pending. The rest of the conditions be imposed by the learned Special Court since as per order of the Hon ble Apex Court the learned Trial Court has been directed to impose conditions as deemed appropriate while granting bail in predicate offence. Conclusion - The applicant s prolonged detention without trial justifies the grant of bail notwithstanding the statutory bar under Section 45 of PMLA and the proviso to Section 436A of Cr.P.C. Application allowed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this judgment are: - Whether the applicant, Christian James Michel, should be granted regular bail in the case arising out of ECIR No. DLZO/15/2014/AD(VM) under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). - Whether the prolonged incarceration of the applicant without trial violates his fundamental right to a fair and expeditious trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. - Whether the applicant's potential flight risk justifies the continued denial of bail despite the prolonged detention and delay in trial. - How the statutory provisions under Section 45 of PMLA and Section 436A of the Cr.P.C. should be applied in the context of this case, considering the delay in investigation and trial. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Delay in Investigation and Trial - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court considered the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to a fair and expeditious trial. The Court also referred to precedents such as Prem Prakash v. Union of India and V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, which emphasize that prolonged pre-trial detention infringes upon this right. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the applicant has been in custody for over six years without the commencement of trial. It observed that such prolonged incarceration, without any foreseeable conclusion of trial, infringes upon the applicant's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. - Key Evidence and Findings: The Court acknowledged that the investigation is incomplete, charges have not been framed, and the trial has not begun. It also noted the large volume of documents and witnesses involved, which would further delay the trial. - Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles from the aforementioned precedents to conclude that the delay in trial, coupled with the applicant's prolonged detention, justifies the grant of bail. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court considered the argument that the applicant's detention is justified due to the seriousness of the offence. However, it found that the delay in trial outweighs this consideration. - Conclusions: The Court concluded that the applicant's prolonged detention without trial violates his right to a speedy trial, warranting the grant of bail. Flight Risk - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court considered the argument that the applicant is a flight risk, referencing previous decisions that had denied bail on this ground. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the applicant had been granted bail by the Supreme Court in the predicate offence, which weakens the argument of flight risk. - Key Evidence and Findings: The Court acknowledged the applicant's history of evading investigation but found that stringent conditions could mitigate the flight risk. - Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that bail should not be denied solely on the apprehension of flight risk, especially when conditions can be imposed to mitigate such concerns. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court weighed the applicant's past conduct against the possibility of imposing conditions to ensure his presence during trial. - Conclusions: The Court concluded that the applicant's flight risk could be managed through appropriate bail conditions. Application of Section 45 of PMLA and Section 436A of Cr.P.C. - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court considered the stringent conditions for bail under Section 45 of PMLA and the provisions of Section 436A of Cr.P.C., which allows for bail if the accused has served more than half of the maximum sentence. - Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized that the right to bail must be read into these provisions where there is an inordinate delay in trial, effectively converting pre-trial custody into a punitive sentence. - Key Evidence and Findings: The Court noted that the applicant had been in custody for over six years, close to the maximum sentence under PMLA, without trial. - Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles from precedents to conclude that the applicant's prolonged detention justifies the grant of bail, notwithstanding the statutory bar under Section 45 of PMLA. - Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court considered the argument for extended detention under the proviso to Section 436A but found that further incarceration would render the trial meaningless. - Conclusions: The Court concluded that the applicant is entitled to bail due to the prolonged detention and delay in trial, overriding the statutory bar under Section 45 of PMLA and the proviso to Section 436A of Cr.P.C. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - The Court held that "the right to bail must be read into such provisions where there is an inordinate delay in the completion of trial which effectively converts pre-trial custody into a punitive sentence." - The Court emphasized that "prolonged incarceration, without any foreseeable conclusion of trial, would infringe upon the applicant's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution." - The Court determined that the applicant's prolonged detention without trial justifies the grant of bail, notwithstanding the statutory bar under Section 45 of PMLA and the proviso to Section 436A of Cr.P.C. - The Court granted regular bail to the applicant, imposing conditions such as furnishing a personal bond and surety, and surrendering the passport, to mitigate the flight risk.
|
