Money laundering bail denied despite serving half sentence under Section 436-A due to serious scheduled offenses

The Bombay HC dismissed a bail application in a money laundering case involving proceeds of crime. The applicant sought bail under Section 436-A of Cr.P.C., claiming entitlement after serving half the maximum sentence period, and on medical grounds. The court held that while the right to speedy trial is guaranteed under Article 21, Section 436-A grants discretionary power to courts considering factors like offense seriousness and accused's role. The applicant's medical conditions (cataracts, arthritis, hip issues) were not life-threatening enough to warrant bail under PML Act provisions. Since the scheduled offenses involved serious crimes under IPC Section 302 and NDPS Act with maximum punishment of ten years, Section 436-A could not be invoked despite the applicant serving time only for the money laundering charge carrying seven years maximum punishment.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application for bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Applicability of Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C. for release on bail.
3. Parity with co-accused granted bail.
4. Role in the offence and evidence against the applicant.
5. Seriousness of the offence and impact on national economy.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.:
The applicant sought release on bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., citing long incarceration since 22/10/2019. Previous bail applications were rejected on 16/09/2020 and 18/11/2022. This third application is based on having undergone three years and nine months of imprisonment without trial commencement.

2. Applicability of Section 436-A of the Cr.P.C. for Release on Bail:
The applicant's counsel argued that under Section 436-A, the applicant is entitled to bail as he has served more than half of the maximum sentence of seven years under Section 4 of the PMLA. The counsel relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., which construed Section 436-A as a statutory bail provision applicable to money-laundering offences.

3. Parity with Co-accused Granted Bail:
The applicant's counsel referenced the order dated 12/05/2023, where a co-accused (Accused No.8) was granted bail under Section 436-A after three years and six months of judicial custody. The counsel argued that the applicant should receive similar treatment. However, the Special Judge had previously rejected the applicant's claim for parity, noting differences in their roles and involvement in the offence.

4. Role in the Offence and Evidence Against the Applicant:
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed the bail, highlighting the applicant's crucial role in brokering illegal dealings for Iqbal Mirchi, arranging meetings, and laundering proceeds of crime. The applicant's involvement was supported by material evidence, including his statements and the complaint. The court had previously rejected bail applications based on the applicant's active participation in money-laundering activities.

5. Seriousness of the Offence and Impact on National Economy:
The ED emphasized that the PMLA was enacted to curb serious economic offences with a deleterious impact on the national economy. The applicant's offence involved deep-rooted conspiracies and significant public fund losses, posing a serious threat to the financial health of the nation. The court noted that economic offences require a different approach in bail matters due to their grave repercussions on the country's development.

Conclusion:
The court, after considering the arguments and evidence, concluded that the applicant's role in the offence and the seriousness of the crime justified continued detention. The court found no merit in the applicant's claim for parity with the co-accused and rejected the application for bail under Section 436-A, as the maximum punishment could extend up to ten years due to the involvement of NDPS Act offences. The application for bail was thus rejected.

---