2024 (8) TMI 614 - SC - Money Laundering

Maintainability of the second set of appeals - Rejection of bail application - predicate offence - irregularities in the framing and implementation of Delhi s Excise Policy for the year 2021-22 - right to speedy trial - delay and prolonged period of incarceration - whether the appellant is entitled for bail? - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned judgment and order would reveal that though the learned Single Judge of the High Court has dismissed the applications for bail on merits, on medical grounds, it has permitted the appellant to visit his residence to meet his wife in custody once every week - It could thus clearly be seen that this Court expected the trial to be concluded within a period of 6-8 months. The liberty was reserved to approach afresh if the trial did not conclude within the period of 6-8 months. The liberty was also granted in case the trial proceeded at a snail s pace in next three months. A perusal of the material placed on record would clearly reveal that far from the trial being concluded within a period of 6-8 months, it is even yet to commence. Though in the first order of this Court, liberty was reserved to move afresh for bail if the trial proceeded at a snail s pace within a period of three months from the date of the said order, the commencement of the trial is yet to see the light of the day. In these circumstances, in view of the first order of this Court, the appellant was entitled to renew his request - The learned Special Judge and the learned Single Judge of the High Court have considered the applications on merits as well as on the grounds of delay and denial of right to speedy trial. There are no error in the judgments and orders of the learned Special Judge as well as the High Court in considering the merits of the matter. The question that arises is as to whether the trial court and the High Court have correctly considered the observations made by this Court with regard to right to speedy trial and prolonged period of incarceration. The courts below have rejected the claim of the appellant applying the triple test as contemplated under Section 45 of the PMLA. In our view, this is in ignorance of the observations made by this Court in paragraph 28 of the first order wherein this Court specifically observed that right to bail in cases of delay coupled with incarceration for a long period should be read into Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of the PMLA. The right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due weightage to this factor. In the present case, in the ED matter as well as the CBI matter, 493 witnesses have been named. The case involves thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh pages of digitized documents. It is thus clear that there is not even the remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. In our view, keeping the appellant behind the bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. As observed time and again, the prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial. In the present case, the appellant is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being available for facing the trial. In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant. The impugned judgment and order dated 21st May 2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application Nos. 1557 and 1559 of 2024 is quashed and set aside - The appellant is directed to be released on bail in connection with ED Case No. HIU-II/14/2022 registered against the appellant by the ED and FIR No. RC0032022A0053 of 2022 registered against the appellant by the CBI on furnishing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount - Appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the second set of appeals.
2. Entitlement of the appellant to bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
3. Right to speedy trial and prolonged incarceration.
4. Allegations of delay tactics by the appellant.
5. Conditions for grant of bail.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the second set of appeals:
The learned Additional Solicitor General (ASG) raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the second set of appeals, arguing that the appellant should have approached the trial court afresh as per the liberty granted by the Supreme Court in its order dated 4th June 2024. The Supreme Court rejected this objection, noting that relegating the appellant to the trial court and High Court again would be an empty formality and akin to making him play a game of "Snake and Ladder." The Supreme Court emphasized that in matters of life and liberty, a citizen cannot be made to run from pillar to post, and the liberty reserved by the Court to revive the request for bail should be construed as allowing the appellant to approach the Supreme Court directly after the final complaint/charge-sheet was filed.

2. Entitlement of the appellant to bail under the PMLA:
The ASG argued that the appellant was not entitled to bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier order dated 30th October 2023, which emphasized that the right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with prolonged incarceration, should be read into Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and Section 45 of the PMLA. The Court held that the constitutional mandate for a speedy trial is a higher law, and the right to bail must be considered when the trial is delayed for reasons not attributable to the accused.

3. Right to speedy trial and prolonged incarceration:
The Supreme Court highlighted the appellant's prolonged incarceration of around 17 months and noted that the trial had not yet commenced. The Court reiterated that the right to a speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court observed that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," and prolonged pre-trial detention should not become punishment without trial.

4. Allegations of delay tactics by the appellant:
The trial court and the High Court had found that the appellant and other accused persons had filed numerous applications to delay the trial. However, the Supreme Court found that the record did not support the contention that the appellant was responsible for delaying the trial. The Court noted that the appellant had filed only 13 applications in the CBI matter and 14 in the ED matter, most of which were for legitimate purposes such as seeking permission to meet his wife, sign documents, or inspect "un-relied upon documents." The Court also noted that the prosecution had delayed providing the list of "un-relied upon documents," which contributed to the delay in the trial.

5. Conditions for grant of bail:
The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant was entitled to bail due to the prolonged period of incarceration and the delay in the trial. The Court imposed the following conditions for granting bail:
- The appellant must furnish bail bonds for Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount.
- The appellant must surrender his passport to the Special Court.
- The appellant must report to the Investigating Officer every Monday and Thursday between 10-11 AM.
- The appellant must not attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court's order dated 21st May 2024, and directed the appellant to be released on bail with specified conditions. The Court emphasized the importance of the right to a speedy trial and the right to liberty, and criticized the lower courts for not giving due weightage to these fundamental rights.

← Previous Next →