Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 – s.45 – Money Laundering – Alleged bank fraud running into several hundred crores – Entitlement to bail – FIRs registered at the instance of public sector banks alleging fraud to the extent of INR 385.35 crores and INR 289 crores respectively by the appellant-former promoter and non-executive Chairman of ‘A’ company and non-executive Director of another entity, along with other individuals – On basis thereof, ECIRs registered alleging laundering of proceeds of crime – Allegation against the appellant that he is the ultimate beneficiary of the fraud executed at his behest, involving diversion and siphoning of public funds through layered entities – Appellant summoned, statement recorded, search carried out, and was arrested in June 2024 – Prosecution complaint and thereafter supplementary prosecution complaint filed against accused persons-individuals and companies, citing large number of prosecution witnesses, and cognizance of prosecution complaint was yet to be taken – Bail application by the appellant, rejected by Special Judge as also the High Court – Challenge to:
Held: Right to speedy trial, enshrined u/Art.21 not eclipsed by the nature of the offence – Prolonged incarceration of an under trial, without commencement or reasonable progress of trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into form of punishment – Economic offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and fact, and thus, cannot be treated as homogeneous class warranting a blanket denial of bail – On facts, no likelihood of trial commencing in the near future – Continued incarceration in such circumstances, where the evidence which is primarily documentary in nature, already in custody of the prosecution, violates the right of the appellant to speedy trial u/Art.21 – Appellant has cooperated with the investigation and investigation qua the appellant has concluded – Out of 28 individuals, only the appellant was arrested – Maximum sentence which can be imposed on the appellant is seven years – Appellant is in custody for past around 16 months and 20 days – No cognizance has been taken on the prosecution complaint and the proceeding is at the stage of scrutiny of documents – There are 210 witnesses to be examined in the proceeding – Allegation with regard to influencing the witness, does not inspire confidence, since the appellant has been in custody prior to concerned witness being formally arrayed as a witness – Delay in the trial attributable only to the respondent, not the appellant – Allegation of dissipation of proceeds of crime by him untenable at this stage – Thus, the impugned judgment and order quashed and set aside – Appellant to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial. [Paras 18-23]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.