Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to release on bail under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a PMLA case despite prolonged custody, and whether the delay in trial was attributable to the petitioner.
Analysis: Section 436A mandates release of an undertrial prisoner who has undergone detention for one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment, but the benefit is not available where the delay in investigation, inquiry, or trial is caused by the accused. On the materials placed, the Court found that the progress of the case showed repeated adjournments and conduct attributable to the petitioner, including non-cooperation and delay in trial proceedings. The Court also noted that the prosecution had placed material to show the seriousness of the allegations and the continuing investigation regarding proceeds of crime.
Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of Section 436A, and the prayer for bail was rejected.
Final Conclusion: The motion failed on merits because the statutory threshold for release under Section 436A was not available in view of the petitioner's contribution to the delay in trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The benefit of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be declined where the delay in trial is attributable to the accused, even if the period of custody has exceeded one-half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence.