Prolonged pre-trial detention under money laundering law can justify bail when cognizance is pending and trial is not imminent.
Where cognizance had not yet been taken under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the accused had already spent about a year in custody, and trial was unlikely to begin soon because of multiple accused and many witnesses, prolonged incarceration justified bail subject to stringent conditions. The Court also noted that concerns about tampering could be addressed through those conditions. Separately, because the Special Court was vacant, directions were issued to designate a Sessions Judge as Special Court so the complaint could be considered for cognizance and proceedings could continue without procedural blockage.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to be enlarged on bail in proceedings arising under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the absence of cognizance, the period of incarceration and the unlikely early commencement of trial; (ii) Whether directions were warranted for designation of a Sessions Judge as Special Court to enable further proceedings on the complaint.
Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to be enlarged on bail in proceedings arising under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, having regard to the absence of cognizance, the period of incarceration and the unlikely early commencement of trial.
Analysis: The factual position showed that cognizance had not been taken against the appellant, he had already spent about a year in custody, the case involved multiple accused and a large number of witnesses, and the maximum punishment was seven years. In these circumstances, early commencement of trial was not realistically possible. The principles governing grant of bail in such a situation, including the approach adopted in the earlier decision relied upon by the Court, were applied. The possibility of tampering was met by directing stringent conditions.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to bail, subject to stringent conditions.
Issue (ii): Whether directions were warranted for designation of a Sessions Judge as Special Court to enable further proceedings on the complaint.
Analysis: The Special Court was stated to be vacant, and the statutory power under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to designate a Sessions Court for the area was invoked so that the complaint could be taken up for consideration of cognizance. The direction was issued to remove the procedural impediment and keep the matter moving.
Conclusion: The Central Government was directed to designate a Sessions Judge as Special Court.
Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained release on bail, and ancillary directions were issued to secure progress of the complaint and future trial proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Where cognizance has not yet been taken and the trial is not likely to commence in the near future, prolonged incarceration can justify grant of bail in proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, subject to suitable conditions.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
