2024 (10) TMI 13 - SCH - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - predicate offence - allegation against the appellant in the predicate offence is that after illegally transporting cattle across the border, he bribed various officials - HELD THAT - Bail granted to the appellant not only on the ground of parity but also for the reason that the trial is yet to commence. Admittedly, there are 85 witnesses. The trial has not even started. The appellant has been incarcerated for more than 2 years in the present case. Thus, even if any period of incarceration undergone in a predicate offence is left out, a continued incarceration where the appellant is not entirely at fault for the completion of trial due to a prolonged delay, would enure to his benefit for the purpose of granting bail. The appellant cannot be solely faulted for the non-commencement of the trial as he has not gained anything. Therefore, without commenting on the entitlement of the appellant to receive the copies of the document relied upon the prosecution, we are of the view that taking into consideration not only the period of incarceration but also the trial getting delayed owing to numerous witnesses, he is entitled for bail at this stage. The impugned order stands set aside and the appellant is granted bail, subject to the conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court - Appeal allowed.

Summary

The Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant charged under Sections 7, 11, and 12 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The appellant had been incarcerated for over 2 1/2 years, and the trial had not yet commenced. The court considered the delay in the trial and the number of witnesses as reasons to grant bail. The impugned order was set aside, and the appellant was granted bail.