2023 (10) TMI 1255 - HC - Money Laundering

Accused granted bail after 5 years custody without trial in money laundering case under Section 436-A

The Gauhati HC granted bail to an accused in a money laundering and criminal conspiracy case involving misappropriation of Social Welfare Department ... Seeking grant of bail - accused detained without trial - Money Laundering - Criminal Conspiracy - misappropriation of huge funds of Social Welfare Department - siphoning off of the funds from the bank account of Social Welfare Department - HELD THAT:- The record shows that the accused has been in judicial custody as noted in the interim order in connection with the case since 21.04.2018, that is, for 5 years 5 months 26 days. On the other hand, further proceedings in the case has been stayed by order, dated 21.05.2019, which is still in force resulting in non-commencement of trial of the case. The accused has been apparently detained without trial, which cannot indefinitely be allowed to continue without assurance of effective speedy justice to him, who has already undergone one-half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offences. Thus, it appears that the accused has been deprived of the right to liberty and access to speedy justice and trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and right to liberty of bail under Section 436-A Cr.P.C. It is provided that the accused petitioner namely, Mohet Hojai shall be released on bail of Rs.50,000/- with 02 sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati, subject to the conditions imposed - application allowed. Issues Involved:1. Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.2. Applicability of Section 436A Cr.P.C.3. Compliance with Section 45 of the PMLA Act.4. Consideration of judicial custody duration and trial commencement delay.Summary:Grant of Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.:The accused petitioner sought bail in connection with Special PMLA Case No.03/2018 under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The accused had been in judicial detention for 5 years and 6 months. The trial had not commenced, and proceedings were stayed due to a co-accused's criminal petition. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court judgments in Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb and Satender Kumar Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Anr. to support the bail application.Applicability of Section 436A Cr.P.C.:The petitioner argued for bail under Section 436A Cr.P.C., given the prolonged detention without trial commencement. The court noted that undertrials cannot be indefinitely detained pending trial, emphasizing the right to liberty and speedy trial as per the Constitution and judicial precedents.Compliance with Section 45 of the PMLA Act:The respondent opposed the bail, citing the mandatory conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA Act, which are further strengthened by Sections 65 and 71. It was argued that economic offences are a class apart and pose a threat to the national economy, thus requiring stringent consideration for bail.Consideration of Judicial Custody Duration and Trial Commencement Delay:The court acknowledged the serious nature of the economic offence involving Rs.13.5 Crores. However, due to the prolonged detention and the indefinite delay in trial commencement, the court granted interim bail to the accused, emphasizing the need for speedy justice and adherence to the principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is an exception.'Conclusion:The accused petitioner was granted interim bail of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions ensuring appearance in court and non-interference with witnesses. The bail application was disposed of, highlighting the balance between the seriousness of the offence and the right to liberty and speedy trial.