2024 (1) TMI 1426 - HC - Money Laundering

Accused granted bail in money laundering case under Section 45(1) PMLA on medical grounds after 14 months custody

Bhasurangan Versus The Assistant Director, Directorate Of Enforcement Government Of India, Kochi, Jail Superintendent Central Prison & Correctional Home, Thrissur.

Kerala HC granted bail to accused in money laundering case under PMLA after 14 months in judicial custody. Court applied first proviso to Section 45(1) ... Seeking grant of bail on medical grounds - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - right to speedy trial - applicability of 1st proviso to Section 45 (1) of PMLA - HELD THAT:- In Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. [2024 (11) TMI 131 - SUPREME COURT (LB)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that in view of Section 45 (1) of the Act, that ‘sick or infirm’ person is entitled to be released on bail. In that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had, taking into consideration that the accused was in judicial custody for a year and three months and was suffering from physical illness and enlarged him on bail. In the case on hand, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody on 21.11.2023, which is nearly 14 months now. The Medical Board Report clearly shows that the petitioner is a sick person. In view of Section 45 (1) of the Act and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner has to be given the benefit of the 1st proviso to Section 45 (1) of the Act. This Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to hold that the petitioner has not committed the above offences. As the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, going by the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2023 (1) TMI 1374 - SC ORDER], this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is not likely to commit an offence if he is enlarged on bail. This Court is convinced that the petitioner has satisfactorily diluted the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Act. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Conclusion - The petitioner is granted bail due to medical conditions, violation of the right to a speedy trial, and satisfaction of the twin conditions under Section 45 of the Act. The application is allowed, by directing the petitioner to be released on bail subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include:Whether the petitioner, accused of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), is entitled to bail given his prolonged incarceration and medical condition.How the legal framework under Section 45 of the PMLA, which imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, interacts with the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.The impact of the petitioner's medical condition and the completion of the investigation on his eligibility for bail.The applicability of precedents regarding the right to bail and the right to a speedy trial in the context of the petitioner's case.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Eligibility for Bail under PMLARelevant legal framework and precedents: The petitioner is charged under Section 3 of the PMLA, punishable under Section 4. Section 45 of the PMLA imposes stringent conditions for bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offense if released.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court considered the petitioner's prolonged incarceration of 14 months and his serious medical condition. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani, which held that a 'sick or infirm' person is entitled to bail under Section 45(1) of the PMLA.Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's medical reports indicated serious health issues requiring continuous treatment, which supported the argument for bail.Application of law to facts: The court applied the legal standards from Section 45 of the PMLA and relevant Supreme Court precedents, concluding that the petitioner met the criteria for bail due to his medical condition and the improbability of trial commencement in the near future.Treatment of competing arguments: The prosecution's argument against bail, based on the seriousness of the offense, was outweighed by the petitioner's health condition and the right to a speedy trial.Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner should be granted bail, subject to conditions, as his continued detention would infringe upon his constitutional rights under Article 21.Issue 2: Right to Speedy Trial and Prolonged IncarcerationRelevant legal framework and precedents: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial. The court referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, which emphasize the importance of this right.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted that the petitioner's incarceration had already exceeded a substantial part of the potential sentence and that the trial had not commenced, thus violating his right to a speedy trial.Key evidence and findings: The court found no likelihood of the trial commencing soon, given the complexity and volume of the case materials.Application of law to facts: The court balanced the statutory restrictions on bail with the constitutional right to a speedy trial, determining that the latter should prevail in this case.Treatment of competing arguments: The court addressed concerns about the petitioner potentially tampering with evidence by imposing stringent bail conditions.Conclusions: The court held that the petitioner's continued detention was unjustified and ordered his release on bail, emphasizing the need to protect constitutional rights.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'The presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D (5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution.'Core principles established: The court reinforced the principle that bail should not be withheld as a punishment and that constitutional rights, such as the right to a speedy trial, must be upheld even in the face of statutory restrictions.Final determinations on each issue: The petitioner was granted bail due to his prolonged incarceration, medical condition, and the unlikelihood of the trial commencing soon. The court imposed conditions to mitigate concerns about the petitioner's potential interference with the investigation.The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in balancing statutory provisions with constitutional rights, particularly in cases involving prolonged detention and health concerns. The court's decision to grant bail reflects a careful consideration of the petitioner's circumstances and the overarching principles of justice and human rights.