2025 (5) TMI 2220 - HC - Money Laundering

Money-laundering bail bid citing prolonged custody and Section 479 CrPC one-third rule fails due to multiple cases pending

Regular bail was sought in a money-laundering matter on the ground of prolonged custody and likely delay in trial, relying on SC precedent. The HC held ... Seeking grant of Regular Bail - Money laundering - predicate offence - prolonged custody and alleged delay in trial - HELD THAT:- So far the case of Manish Sisodia 2024 (8) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT], on which, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is concerned, in that case, he was involved in one case and in that view of the matter, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has found that the trial is not going to be concluded shortly and thereafter granted regular bail to him. This court while rejecting the regular bail application of the petitioner, while distinguishing the said judgment of Manish Sisodia, has only observed that once the ED informed the court and thereafter the trial is not concluded, in that view of the matter, the Manish Sisodia’s case, may help to the petitioner, however, that was only by way of only observation and there was not the definite direction that if the trial is not concluded, the petitioner can make a regular bail before this court. In the case of Manish Sisodia, the Hon’ble Supreme court has given the liberty to file the regular bail before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In light of the proviso of Sub-Section (1) of Section 479, one can be released on bail for the period extending, if he has incarcerated in custody up to one-third of the maximum period of punishment, specified for such offence under that law. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he is an accused in three of ECIR cases and in other IPC Section Case, as pointed out and the investigation has already been completed in those cases, in view of sub-Section-(2) of Section 479, the investigation, inquiry or trial in more than one offence or in multiple cases are pending against a person, there is a bar of releasing that person on bail, in view of that Section, as such, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner so far as Section 479 is concerned, that is being not accepted by this court. This court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner, named above - bail application rejected. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (i) Whether a renewed application for regular bail, after earlier rejection on merits, could succeed solely on the grounds of prolonged custody and alleged delay in trial in a prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (ii) Whether the delay in recording prosecution evidence justified bail when the Court found that the delay was attributable to the accused persons rather than the prosecuting agency. (iii) Whether Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 entitled the applicant to statutory bail on custody-duration, or whether the bar in Section 479(2) applied due to pendency of multiple investigations/inquiries/trials in more than one offence/multiple cases. (iv) Whether the Supreme Court decisions granting bail on long incarceration were applicable, given the Court's finding that those cases were factually distinguishable and the applicant faced multiple cases and serious allegations. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue (i): Renewed bail after earlier rejection-custody and trial-delay as the only new grounds Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court proceeded on the settled approach to bail discretion under Section 439 Cr.P.C. read with the corresponding provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and reiterated that bail is not to be granted as a matter of course, especially in serious offences, requiring consideration of the nature of accusation, severity of punishment, supporting material, and apprehensions regarding tampering and the public interest in economic offences. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the applicant's earlier regular bail had already been rejected on merits by a detailed order, and that the present application was essentially renewed on custody-length and delay in trial. The Court treated the earlier observations regarding possible relevance of long-custody principles as non-binding and not a 'definite direction' that bail must follow if the trial was not concluded. The Court further emphasized the serious nature of allegations and the applicant's alleged key role in the offence. Conclusion: Mere passage of time in custody, without satisfaction of the applicable bail considerations in the specific factual context, did not persuade the Court to grant regular bail, particularly when other decisive factors (seriousness and multiplicity of cases) weighed against release. Issue (ii): Whether trial-delay justified bail where delay was attributed to the accused persons Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): While considering long custody and trial progress, the Court also relied upon the explanation embedded in Section 479 (computation of detention excluding delay caused by the accused) as relevant to the overall evaluation of delay and custody-based claims. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court considered that only two witnesses had been examined and many remained, but accepted the prosecuting agency's submission that the delay was caused by repeated petitions filed by accused persons, and that those petitions had been disposed of by the trial court. The Court held, prima facie, that the failure to examine additional witnesses could not be attributed as a fault of the prosecuting agency, because the accused persons themselves were responsible for delaying the trial process. Conclusion: The Court refused to treat the pace of evidence as a ground favouring bail, because it found that delay was attributable to the accused side and not to prosecutorial inaction. Issue (iii): Applicability of Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023-statutory custody-based release and the bar for multiple pending cases Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court examined Section 479, including (a) the custody thresholds in Section 479(1) and its provisos, and (b) the express non obstante bar in Section 479(2) where investigation, inquiry, or trial in more than one offence or multiple cases is pending against a person. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged that Section 479(1) contemplates release on bail upon detention reaching specified fractions of the maximum imprisonment period. However, the Court found as an admitted position that the applicant was an accused in multiple enforcement cases and also in other related criminal matters. On that basis, the Court applied Section 479(2) and held that the statutory mechanism for custody-based release under Section 479(1) was not available due to the statutory bar where multiple matters are pending. Conclusion: The Court rejected the claim for custody-based bail under Section 479, holding that Section 479(2) barred release because multiple cases/investigations/inquiries/trials were pending against the applicant. Issue (iv): Reliance on Supreme Court long-custody bail decisions-whether factually distinguishable due to multiplicity of cases and alleged role Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court reiterated that economic offences require a different approach to bail, with heightened consideration of the gravity of allegations, supporting material, and broader public interest. It also weighed the relevance of precedents granting bail on long incarceration against the factual matrix before it. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the long-custody bail decisions cited by the applicant were distinguishable, principally because those accused were generally facing only one case, whereas the applicant was facing multiple cases. The Court further treated the applicant as having a key alleged role in the manipulation central to the offence, and also took note that bail had been rejected in other connected matters. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the custody-based precedents did not compel or justify bail on the present facts. Conclusion: The Court found the cited long-incarceration bail decisions inapplicable to the applicant due to the multiplicity of pending cases and the alleged central role, and accordingly declined to grant regular bail.