Money laundering accused granted bail after 24-25 months custody due to trial delays under Section 45 PMLA

Delhi HC granted bail to two applicants in a money laundering case after 24-25 months of custody. The court held that prolonged incarceration due to trial delays not attributable to the accused violates Article 21 constitutional rights. Despite Section 45 PMLA's stringent bail conditions, the court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. With 10 accused, 108 witnesses, 5172 pages of documents, and trial still at charge stage with no presiding officer appointed, the court found unreasonable delay. Both applicants were granted regular bail with Rs. 1,00,000 personal bonds and sureties.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Delay in trial and its impact on the right to life and liberty under Article 21.
2. Applicability of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) in light of prolonged incarceration.
3. Parity in bail decisions with co-accused.
4. The role of Section 436A CrPC in granting bail.
5. Conditions for granting bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Trial and Right to Life and Liberty:

The applicants have been in custody for over 24 months, and the trial has not commenced, highlighting a significant delay. The court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental constitutional right under Article 21, which must take precedence over statutory provisions. The delay in trial proceedings, not attributable to the applicants, severely impacts their right to life and liberty. The court reiterated that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," stressing that prolonged pre-trial detention violates constitutional rights.

2. Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA:

Section 45 of the PMLA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, but it does not create an absolute bar. The court noted that when there is no reasonable prospect of trial concluding soon, the constitutional mandate of Article 21 supersedes the conditions under Section 45. The court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Senthil Balaji and Manish Sisodia, which held that the power to grant bail can be exercised when prolonged incarceration violates constitutional rights, notwithstanding statutory provisions.

3. Parity in Bail Decisions:

The applicants sought parity with a co-accused who was granted bail. The court acknowledged that parity is a relevant consideration in bail decisions under the PMLA, as held in Abhishek Boinpally. The court noted that the main accused had been granted bail, and there was no evidence suggesting the applicants were flight risks or had tampered with evidence during their interim bail periods.

4. Role of Section 436A CrPC:

The court addressed the respondent's contention regarding Section 436A CrPC, clarifying that it does not mandate denial of bail until the accused has undergone a specified period of detention. Instead, it allows for bail after the accused has served half of the maximum sentence. The court emphasized that the constitutional right to a speedy trial should not be subjugated by statutory provisions, as elucidated in the Manish Sisodia case.

5. Conditions for Granting Bail:

The court granted bail to the applicants, subject to several conditions, including furnishing personal bonds, not leaving Delhi/NCR without permission, surrendering passports, providing contact details, and refraining from contacting prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence. The court stressed that the decision to grant bail was based on the prolonged delay in trial and was not an expression on the merits of the case.

Conclusion:

The court ordered the release of the applicants on regular bail, emphasizing the importance of constitutional rights over statutory constraints when faced with prolonged pre-trial incarceration. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding individual liberties and ensuring justice is not delayed unduly.

---