TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bail Granted: Court Clarifies Entitlements Under BNSS 2023 for Defendants Detained Over One-Third of Max Sentence.</h1> <h3>BADSHAH MAJID MALIK Versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ORS.</h3> The SC granted the appellant bail under the first proviso of Section 479(1) of the BNSS, 2023, as the appellant had not been previously convicted and had ... Money Laundering - scheduled offences - smuggling of Red Sanders - applicability of first provisio or second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 479 of the BNSS? - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the maximum sentence for the scheduled offence under Sections 132, 135(1)(a)(ii) and 135(1)(b)(ii) read with Section 140 of the Customs Act, 1862 is three years. On facts, this is not a case where this Court should exercise powers under second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 479 of the BNSS and deny the benefit of the first proviso. The appellant is ordered to enlarged on bail in terms of the first proviso of sub- Section 1 of Section 479 of the BNSS. For that purpose, we direct that the appellant shall be produced before the Special Court within a maximum period of one week from today - Appeal allowed. Issues: Interpretation of Section 479(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in relation to the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih, granted leave to consider the application of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to prosecutions under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The Court noted the relevance of Section 479(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) to such prosecutions, emphasizing the release on bail provision based on detention periods during investigation, inquiry, or trial. The Court referred to the case of Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary vs. Union of India, which highlighted the interplay of statutory provisions in determining bail eligibility. The judgment clarified that the first proviso of Section 479(1) of the BNSS applies when a person, like the appellant in this case, has not been previously convicted and has undergone detention exceeding one-third of the maximum imprisonment period for the alleged offence.In the case at hand, the respondent argued for the invocation of the second proviso of Section 479(1) of the BNSS, contending that the appellant's involvement in smuggling Red Sanders warranted a different bail consideration. However, the Court noted that the scheduled offence in question carried a maximum sentence of three years under relevant sections of the Customs Act, 1862. Given these circumstances, the Court determined that the second proviso need not be applied, and the appellant should benefit from the first proviso of Section 479(1) of the BNSS.Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the appellant was directed to be released on bail in accordance with the first proviso of Section 479(1) of the BNSS. The Court instructed the appellant's production before the Special Court within a week for bail proceedings, with conditions ensuring the appellant's presence and cooperation in the ongoing legal matters related to the scheduled offence and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act. The judgment effectively disposed of pending applications and provided clarity on the bail entitlements under the BNSS in cases involving prosecutions under specific laws like the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
