2025 (2) TMI 632 - HC - Money Laundering

Seeking grant of bail under Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - whether the Applicants who have been in pre-trial detention for approximately 4 years and 9 months are entitled to bail under Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) which allows for the release of undertrial prisoners who have served one-half of the maximum sentence for the alleged offence? - HELD THAT - It is settled law by a plethora of cases passed by the Supreme Court that a Court while deciding a Bail Application has to keep in mind the principal rule of bail which is to ascertain whether the Accused is likely to appear before the Court for trial. Though there would be consideration for the other broad parameters like gravity of offence likelihood of Accused repeating the offence while on bail whether he would influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence which will have to be considered. However juxtaposed that with the fact that almost 4 years 9 months of incarceration and trial having not commenced is required to be seen especially when trial has indeed not commenced. The Supreme Court in a plethora of judgements have discussed the rights conferred by Article 21 qua grant of bail and that such rights cannot be taken away unless the procedure is reasonable and fair and in cases where there is unreasonable delay in trial it would undoubtedly impact the rights of an undertrial. In the landmark judgement of Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India 1978 (1) TMI 161 - SUPREME COURT the Supreme Court held that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 is not limited to mere animal existence but includes the right to live with dignity. The court emphasized that the procedure established by law must be fair just and reasonable and it cannot be arbitrary oppressive or unreasonable. In the present case it is seen that Applicants have been indicted in the predicate offence under Section 120-B read with 420 of the IPC for which the maximum sentence which can be imposed is imprisonment which may extend to 7 years alongwith fine. Even otherwise as the scheduled offence against Applicants falls under paragraph 1 of part A of the schedule to the PMLA the maximum period for which the Applicants can be punished with imprisonment of 7 years. Applicants have been in custody in connection with the present offence since 14.05.2020 i.e. for almost 4 years and 9 months which is beyond the one-half of maximum period of imprisonment which can be imposed upon conviction. It is seen that statutory provisions of Section 436-A of CrPC if seen contain the word shall which clearly indicates that gravity of the offence is not relevant for considering bail neither it distinguishes that rigours of Section 45 of PMLA would be applicable. It is plain and simple on interpretation meaning that once the undertrial accused crosses one-half of the maximum sentence the rigours of the twin conditions contemplated under Section 45 (1) of PMLA would not apply and applicant will be entitled to be released on bail - Considering the present status of the trial and no possibility of it being concluded in the foreseeable future coupled with the pre-trial incarceration of the Applicants beyond one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment which can be imposed on them upon conviction Applicants are entitled to bail. Conclusion - The Applicants were entitled to bail under Section 436-A due to their prolonged pre-trial detention and the lack of progress in the trial. Both Applicants are directed to be released on bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary legal issue considered by the Court was whether the Applicants, who have been in pre-trial detention for approximately 4 years and 9 months, are entitled to bail under Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows for the release of undertrial prisoners who have served one-half of the maximum sentence for the alleged offence. The Court also examined whether the delay in the trial could be attributed to the Applicants and whether economic offences should be treated differently in the context of bail applications.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Entitlement to Bail under Section 436-A of CrPC

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 436-A of the CrPC provides that an undertrial prisoner should be released on bail if they have served one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the alleged offence. The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary affirmed that this provision applies even to offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court emphasized the legislative intent behind Section 436-A, which is to uphold the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court noted that the Applicants had already served more than half of the maximum potential sentence, making them eligible for bail under this provision.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Applicants had been in custody for 4 years and 9 months, exceeding half of the 7-year maximum sentence for the alleged offences. The trial had not commenced, and there was no indication that it would begin soon.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied Section 436-A to the facts, determining that the Applicants' prolonged detention without trial violated their right to a speedy trial.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Respondent argued that the Applicants' conduct contributed to the delay, citing multiple interim applications filed by them. However, the Court found that the delay could not be solely attributed to the Applicants.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Applicants were entitled to bail under Section 436-A, as they had served more than half of the maximum sentence, and the trial had not commenced.

2. Treatment of Economic Offences in Bail Applications

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Court considered precedents that suggest economic offences require a different approach due to their serious impact on the economy, as seen in cases like Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI and Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: While acknowledging the gravity of economic offences, the Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial and personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be compromised. The Court noted that Section 436-A does not distinguish between types of offences.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Court found that the Applicants had been incarcerated for a significant period without the commencement of trial, which was a critical factor in deciding bail.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles of bail jurisprudence, emphasizing that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, even in economic offences, unless there are compelling reasons to deny bail.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Respondent argued for a stricter approach due to the nature of the offences, but the Court prioritized the Applicants' rights under Article 21.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the Applicants should be granted bail, as the prolonged detention without trial was not justified, even considering the nature of the offences.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Core Principles Established: The Court reaffirmed that Section 436-A of the CrPC applies to all offences, including those under the PMLA, and that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21. The Court emphasized that bail should be the norm and detention the exception, particularly when the trial is delayed.

Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Court determined that the Applicants were entitled to bail under Section 436-A due to their prolonged pre-trial detention and the lack of progress in the trial. The Court set conditions for bail, including reporting requirements and restrictions on travel.

The Court's decision underscores the importance of balancing the severity of economic offences with the fundamental rights of the accused, ensuring that prolonged detention without trial does not infringe on the right to personal liberty and a speedy trial. The judgment highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional rights while considering the broader implications of economic offences.