2025 (1) TMI 683 - DSC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Whether the applicant/accused, Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani, has made out a prima facie case for release on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, considering his medical condition under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002? - HELD THAT - Considering the medical record before this Court, coupled with the fact that since the time of arrest, till the last medical report received from Sir J.J. Hospital, it appears that the accused is suffering from various ailments, due to passing of time disease became chronic and uncontrolled. Accordingly, accused is sick. The judgment in the matter of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2024 (8) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT , the Hon ble Apex Court has dealt with the issue of delay in commencement of the trial and has held that it violates Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and has granted bail to the said accused. In this matter, applicant/accused is in custody since 18 months and no sign of trial to start in near future and not possible of it to conclude in a short span of time. Punishment under PML Act, 2002 is maximum 7 years. Accused has already being in custody since 18 months. Long period of incarceration without chance of trial being commencing in near future itself dilutes the rigorous of twin condition of PML Act, 2002. In view of my aforesaid discussions, as applicant/accused is sick, therefore, his case squarely falls within proviso given beneath section 45(1) of PML Act, 2002. As there is inordinate delay in commencement of the trial, therefore, accused is entitled for release on bail under section 45 of PML Act, 2002. Conclusion - The applicant's medical conditions and the delay in trial commencement both justified granting bail. Bail application allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the applicant/accused, Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani, has made out a prima facie case for release on bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in conjunction with Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PML Act), 2002?
What are the implications of the applicant's medical condition on the bail application?
Does the delay in the commencement of the trial violate the applicant's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Prima Facie Case for Bail

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involves Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Section 45(1) of the PML Act, 2002. The proviso to Section 45(1) allows for bail if the accused is "sick or infirm."
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the applicant's medical conditions, including chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and 60% permanent disability, qualify him as "sick" under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PML Act.
Key Evidence and Findings: Medical reports from Sir J.J. Hospital confirmed the applicant's severe health issues, including chronic kidney disease Stage IV and uncontrolled diabetes.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PML Act, finding that the applicant's medical conditions warranted bail.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The prosecution argued that the applicant's medical conditions were not life-threatening and could be managed in custody. However, the court emphasized the seriousness of the applicant's ailments and the potential for deterioration.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the applicant's medical condition justified granting bail under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PML Act.

Issue 2: Right to Speedy Trial

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial. The court referenced the judgment in Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, which addressed delays in trial commencement.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that the applicant had been in custody for 18 months without the trial commencing, which violated his right to a speedy trial.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted the lack of progress in the trial and the applicant's prolonged incarceration.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that prolonged detention without trial commencement violates Article 21, justifying bail.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The prosecution argued there was no delay on their part, but the court focused on the overall delay in trial commencement.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the delay in trial commencement violated the applicant's constitutional rights, supporting the decision to grant bail.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA specifically contemplates that a person who 'is sick or infirm' may be released on bail if the Special Court so directs."
Core Principles Established: The court established that severe medical conditions, even if not immediately life-threatening, can justify bail under the PML Act. Additionally, prolonged pre-trial detention without trial commencement can violate constitutional rights.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court determined that the applicant's medical condition and the delay in trial commencement justified granting bail. The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail on the same terms and conditions as previously set.

← Previous Next →