9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 1019 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - scheduled offence - right to speedy trial - evidence against the present applicant is in the form of confessional statements by the other co-accused persons which cannot be relied upon with respect to the prosecution of the present applicant - HELD THAT - The first complaint filed by the respondent/Enforcement Directorate in the present ECIR was on 04.12.2021 thereafter it is pointed out that 4 supplementary complaints have been filed last of which was filed on 06.04.2023. The Hon ble Supreme Court in V. Senthil Balaji 2024 (9) TMI 1497 - SUPREME COURT has clearly held that since the existence of a scheduled offence is the sine qua non for alleging existence of proceeds of crime then the said existence of proceeds of crime at the time of the trial of offence under Section 3 of PMLA can be proved only if the scheduled offence is established in the prosecution of the said offence. In these circumstances it was held that trial in the case under PMLA cannot be finally decided unless a trial of scheduled offence concludes. In the present case as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant in the scheduled offence wherein the charge-sheet has also been filed the trial has not yet commenced and the charges have not been framed so far. The role of the present applicant as per the case of the prosecution was for providing entries in order to assist the main accused in laundering the proceeds of crime. The said allegation is sought to be proved by the prosecution on basis of statements made by the other co-accused persons as well as the present applicant. The statements made under Section 50 of the PMLA no doubt is admissible in evidence however the veracity and sanctity of the same has to be tested during the course of the trial - The trial has not even commenced. The present applicant who is accused in a case of money-laundering cannot be considered to be a threat to the society without any material to demonstrate the same. The continued incarceration of the applicant with no possibility of trial being completed in near future cannot be ignored and in case of conflict with a restrictive statutory provision like Section 45 of PMLA the latter would not come in way ensuring the right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the present case the applicant was arrested on 12.10.2021 and has been in custody for a period of 3 years and 4 months approximately. The trial in the present complaint is yet to commence and would take time to conclude. Apart from expressing apprehension of the applicant being a flight risk no material has been shown to demonstrate the same. The evidence in the present case is primarily documentary in nature which is already in possession of the prosecution. The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1, 00, 000/- alongwith one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Link Court further subject to the fulfilment of conditions imposed. Conclusion - The right to a speedy trial is paramount and cannot be compromised by statutory conditions for bail. It establishes that prolonged pre-trial detention without a foreseeable trial conclusion infringes on constitutional rights. The applicant should be granted bail due to the prolonged detention and lack of trial progress. Bail application allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework involves Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of the PMLA, which impose stringent conditions for granting bail in money laundering cases. The court also considers the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Precedents cited include judgments from the Supreme Court emphasizing that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," even under stringent statutes like the PMLA. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court interprets the legal provisions to balance the stringent conditions of the PMLA with the fundamental rights of the accused. It acknowledges that while Section 45 imposes a higher threshold for bail, this cannot override the constitutional mandate for a speedy trial. The Court refers to the Supreme Court's stance that prolonged pre-trial detention without the likelihood of a timely trial violates Article 21. Key evidence and findings: The prosecution's case against the applicant is primarily based on statements from co-accused and evidence of financial transactions allegedly linked to money laundering activities. However, the Court notes that the veracity of these statements and the applicant's mens rea must be tested during the trial. Application of law to facts: The Court applies the legal principles to the facts, emphasizing that the applicant has been in custody for over three years without the trial commencing. It highlights that the evidence against the applicant is largely documentary and in the possession of the prosecution, reducing the risk of tampering. Treatment of competing arguments: The applicant's counsel argues that the applicant lacks mens rea and that the evidence against him is insufficient for conviction. The respondent, representing the Enforcement Directorate, contends that the applicant is deeply involved in money laundering activities and poses a flight risk. The Court finds that the applicant's prolonged detention without trial and the lack of substantive evidence of flight risk or threat to society justify granting bail. Conclusions: The Court concludes that the applicant's continued detention violates his right to a speedy trial, and the conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA should not be used to justify indefinite pre-trial incarceration. The applicant is granted bail with conditions to ensure his availability for trial and prevent tampering with evidence. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Court cites the Supreme Court's observation that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," emphasizing that this principle applies even under stringent statutes like the PMLA. It also refers to the need for a reasonable trial timeline, stating that "inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together." Core principles established: The judgment reinforces the principle that the right to a speedy trial is paramount and cannot be compromised by statutory conditions for bail. It establishes that prolonged pre-trial detention without a foreseeable trial conclusion infringes on constitutional rights. Final determinations on each issue: The Court determines that the applicant should be granted bail due to the prolonged detention and lack of trial progress. It sets conditions for bail, including restrictions on travel and requirements to cooperate with the investigation, to mitigate any potential risks.
|
