Petitioner granted bail after 8 years without trial - Section 45(1) unconstitutional

The Court ordered the release on bail of the Petitioner, who had been in custody for about 8 years without trial commencement in a PMLA case. Emphasizing the unconstitutionality of the twin conditions under Section 45(1) of the PML Act post the Supreme Court's judgment in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India, the decision highlighted the importance of the right to a speedy trial and balancing justice delivery with the protection of individual liberty.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Petitioner's continued custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PML Act).
2. Applicability of Section 45 of the PML Act post the Supreme Court's judgment in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India.
3. Petitioner's right to bail considering the duration of detention and the status of the trial.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Petitioner's Continued Custody under the PML Act:
The Petitioner, in custody since 13.05.2013 in connection with ECIR No.BSZO/04/2014 under Section 3 read with Sections 70(1) and 70(2) of the PML Act, filed a petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for bail. The prosecution's case includes multiple charge sheets under various sections of the IPC and the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. The Petitioner was convicted by the Special C.J.M., Bhubaneswar, and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge, Khurda, issued a production warrant and remanded the Petitioner to custody, rejecting his bail application.

2. Applicability of Section 45 of the PML Act Post the Supreme Court's Judgment in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India:
The Petitioner's counsel argued that the learned Sessions Judge erroneously relied on Section 45 of the PML Act, which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 1. The Supreme Court held that the twin conditions for bail under Section 45(1) violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Despite amendments to Section 45(1) by Acts 13 of 2018 and 23 of 2019, the twin conditions were not revived. Various High Courts, including Bombay, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, and Patna, have consistently rejected the revival of these conditions post-amendment.

3. Petitioner's Right to Bail Considering the Duration of Detention and the Status of the Trial:
The Petitioner has been in custody for about 8 years, and the trial in the PMLA case has not commenced. The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21, as emphasized by the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979 AIR 1369). The prolonged detention without trial undermines the Criminal Justice System. Given the Petitioner's completed sentence in the CBI case and the lack of trial commencement in the PMLA case, the Court directed the Petitioner's release on bail with stringent conditions to ensure his appearance in court, prevent similar future activities, and avoid tampering with evidence.

Conclusion:
The Court ordered the Petitioner's release on bail, emphasizing the unconstitutionality of the twin conditions under Section 45(1) of the PML Act and the Petitioner's prolonged detention without trial. The decision underscores the importance of the right to a speedy trial and the necessity of balancing justice delivery with the protection of individual liberty.

---