9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 614X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - with two sureties of the like amount - Appeal allowed. - B. R. GAVAI And K. V. VISWANATHAN , JJ. JUDGMENT B. R. GAVAI, J. 1. Leave granted. Appeals heard on merits. 2. The present appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 21st May 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application Nos. 1557 and 1559 of 2024, thereby rejecting the said applications filed by the present appellant for grant of bail. The aforesaid two applications were filed seeking bail in connection with ED Case No. HIU-II/14/2022 registered against the appellant by the Directorate of Enforcement (for short, ED ) and First Information Report (FIR) No. RC0032022A0053 of 2022 registered against the appellant by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, CBI ). 3. FIR No. RC0032022A0053 of 2022 came to be registered by the CBI on 17th August 2022, and ED Case No. HIU-II/14/2022 came to be registered by the ED on 22nd August 2022. 4. Since both the cases arise out of similar facts, the latter being the predicate offence and the former being a case registered on the basis of the predicate offence, both these appeals are heard and decided together. FACTS IN BRI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 7795 and 7799 of 2024. 12. The matter was heard on 4th June 2024. This Court, in the said order (hereinafter referred to as the second order of this Court ) recorded the submissions of the learned Solicitor General that the investigation would be concluded and final complaint/charge-sheet would be filed expeditiously and at any rate on or before 3rd July 2024 and immediately thereafter, the trial court would be free to proceed with the trial. This Court recorded the submissions made by the learned Solicitor General and observed that having regard to the fact that the period of 6-8 months fixed by this Court by order dated 30th October 2023 had not yet come to an end, disposed of the said petition with liberty to revive his prayer afresh after filing of the final complaint/charge-sheet. 13. Accordingly, after filing of the final complaint/chargesheet, the appellant has approached this Court by way of the present appeals. This Court, vide order dated 16th July 2024 had issued notice. In response thereto, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the ED as well as the CBI opposing the present appeals. SUBMISSIONS: 14. We have extensively ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , has given various findings in favour of the appellant. It is submitted that, a perusal of the same would clearly reveal that at number of places, this Court has given findings which would show that the respondents have not been in a position to make out a prima facie case. Dr. Singhvi further submitted that a perusal of the record would reveal that even the investigation in the case is not complete. He therefore submitted that unless the investigation is complete, the trial cannot proceed. He submitted that three more supplementary complaints have been filed on 10th May 2024, 17th May 2024 and 20th June 2024 in the ED matter and as on 27th July 2024, there were 40 persons who have been arrayed as accused in the proceedings with more than 8 complaints. He further submitted that, in the ED matter, the ED has cited 224 witnesses and produced 32,000 pages of documents. He further submitted that, in the CBI matter, the CBI has cited 269 witnesses and produced around 37,000 pages of documents. It is therefore submitted that in all there are 493 witnesses, excluding the ones in the 4th Supplementary Charge-sheet filed by the CBI, who will have to be examined and that in total the docume ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ave been filed only for the purpose of delaying the trial. It is submitted that though in view of the law laid down by this Court in the case of P. Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1543 : 2022 INSC 1175 , such applications could have been filed only after framing of the charges, the same have been intentionally filed at a precharge stage of the trial, so as to delay the framing of the charges. He submitted that though the appellant is entitled to file an application for discharge, the same has not been filed only in order to protract the trial. He submitted that the totality of the circumstances would reveal that it is the appellant who has been protracting the trial. It is submitted that as the appellant himself is responsible for protracting the trial, he cannot be permitted to take the benefit of the same. 23. The learned ASG submitted that unless the triple conditions as stipulated under Section 45 of the PMLA are satisfied, no person accused of an offence shall be released on bail. It is submitted that, in the present case, this Court itself by the first order has found that the appellant was not entitled for bail on merits and as such, the second condition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2024. It will be apposite to refer to the observations made by this Court in the said order, which read thus: Though, elaborate arguments have been made, we do not propose to go into the said arguments or dwell upon it and then record our reasons for the simple reason that Co-ordinate Bench while dismissing the appeals vide order dated 30.10.2023, as noticed hereinabove has granted liberty to the appellant, i.e., the petitioner herein to move a fresh application for bail by placing reliance on the assurance given on behalf of the prosecution that they would conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within next 6-8 months and as such the liberty was extended to the petitioner herein to move a fresh application in case of change in circumstances, or in case the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail s pace in next three months. It was also observed that if such an application is filed in the aforesaid circumstances, the same would be considered by the trial court on merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the earlier bail application including the judgment of this Court. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General on instructions would submit that the investig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asise that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right within the broad scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), this Court while highlighting the evil of economic offences like money laundering, and its adverse impact on the society and citizens, observed that arrest infringes the fundamental right to life. This Court referred to Section 19 of the PML Act, for the in-built safeguards to be adhered to by the authorised officers to ensure fairness, objectivity and accountability. [See also Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1244] Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra), also held that Section 436A of the Code can apply to offences under the PML Act, as it effectuates the right to speedy trial, a facet of the right to life, except for a valid ground such as where the trial is delayed at the instance of the accused himself. In our opinion, Section 436A should not be construed as a mandate that an accused should not be granted bail under the PML Act till he has suffered incarceration for the specified period. This Court, in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2021) 2 SCC 427, held that while ensuring p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iate steps within next six to eight months, we give liberty to the appellant Manish Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances, or in case the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail s pace in next three months. If any application for bail is filed in the above circumstances, the same would be considered by the trial court on merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the earlier bail application, including the present judgment. Observations made above, re.: right to speedy trial, will, however, be taken into consideration. The appellant Manish Sisodia may also file an application for interim bail in case of ill health and medical emergency due to illness of his wife. Such application would be also examined on its own merits. 29. A perusal of the aforesaid would reveal that this Court was concerned about the prolonged period of incarceration suffered by the appellant. After considering various earlier pronouncements, this Court emphasised that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right within the broad scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. Relying on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others (2022) SC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court had granted liberty to the appellant to revive his prayer after filing of the chargesheet. Now, relegating the appellant to again approach the trial court and thereafter the High Court and only thereafter this Court, in our view, would be making him play a game of Snake and Ladder . The trial court and the High Court have already taken a view and in our view relegating the appellant again to the trial court and the High Court would be an empty formality. In a matter pertaining to the life and liberty of a citizen which is one of the most sacrosanct rights guaranteed by the Constitution, a citizen cannot be made to run from pillar to post. 33. A careful reading of the second order of this Court dated 4th June 2024 would show that this Court recorded that they did not propose to go into the arguments or dwell upon it in view of the liberty granted in the first order of this Court. Thereafter, this Court noticed the assurance of the learned Solicitor General that the investigation would be concluded and final complaint/charge-sheet would be filed at any rate on or before 3rd July 2024. This Court further observed in its second order that since the period of 6-8 months fixe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PMLA are not satisfied, the appellant is not entitled to grant of bail is concerned, it will be apposite to refer to the first order of this Court. No doubt that this Court in its first order in paragraph 25, after recapitulating in paragraph 24 as to what was stated in the charge-sheet filed by the CBI against the appellant, observed that, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court was not inclined to accept the prayer for grant of bail at that stage. However, certain paragraphs of the said order cannot be read in isolation from the other paragraphs. The order will have to be read in its entirety. In paragraph 28 of the said order, this Court observed that the right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a long period, depending on the nature of the allegations, should be read into Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of the PMLA. The Court held that the constitutional mandate is the higher law, and it is the basic right of the person charged of an offence and not convicted that he be ensured and given a speedy trial. It further observed that when the trial is not proceeding for reasons not attributable to the accused, the court, unless there are good reasons, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the prosecution that they shall conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within next 6-8 months. In view of the said statement, this Court did not consider the application of the appellant for bail at that stage, however, granted liberty to the appellant to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances, or in case the trial is protracted and proceeded at a snail s pace in next three months. Though, this Court observed that if any application for bail was filed on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 29, the same would be considered by the trial court without being influenced by the dismissal of the earlier bail applications including the present judgment, however, it clarified that the observations made by the Court with regard to right to speedy trial would be taken into consideration. The liberty was also granted to the appellant to file an application for interim bail in case of ill-health and medical emergency due to illness of his wife. 41. 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 t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led with incarceration for a long period should be read into Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of the PMLA. 45. The trial court, in its order, has held that the appellant individually and along with different accused persons have been filing one or the other applications/making oral submissions frequently. It further observed that some of them were frivolous. It was observed that this was apparently done as a concerted effort for accomplishing the shared purpose of causing delay in the matter. The trial court therefore rejected the contention of the appellant that he had not contributed to delay in proceedings or that the case has been proceeding at a snail s pace. However, in the very subsequent paragraph i.e., paragraph 80, the court observed that, in order to avoid any delay and considering the time being taken by the counsel for the accused in inspecting the un-relied upon documents , it had vide order dated 18th April 2024 put a query to the prosecution if the entire unrelied upon documents can be provided to the accused persons in a digitized form. It further recorded that the ED accepted the suggestion that it would expedite the proceedings. However, some time was sought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound 69,000 pages of documents involved in both the CBI and the ED matters. Taking into consideration the huge magnitude of the documents involved, it cannot be stated that the accused is not entitled to take a reasonable time for inspection of the said documents. In order to avail the right to fair trial, the accused cannot be denied the right to have inspection of the documents including the un-relied upon documents . 48. It is further to be noted that a perusal of the second order of this Court would itself reveal that this Court recorded the submissions of the learned Solicitor General, which were made on instructions, that the investigation would be concluded and final complaint/charge-sheet would be filed expeditiously and at any rate on or before 3rd July 2024. Accordingly, 8th charge-sheet has been filed on 28th June 2024 by the ED. It could thus be seen that, even according to the respondents, the investigation was to be concluded on or before 3rd July 2024. In that view of the matter, we find that the contention raised by the learned ASG is self-contradictory. If the investigation itself was to conclude on or before 3rd July 2024, the question is how could the trial have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote: What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R v. Rose, (1898) 18 Cox] : I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the, magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial. 53. The Court further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. From our experience, we can say that it appears that the trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, this Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that the trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
