Accused granted bail in money laundering case after twenty months custody without trial completion

The Calcutta HC granted bail to an accused in a money laundering case involving illegal appointment of ineligible candidates. The petitioner was in custody for twenty months since March 2023. The court noted that while ED's material prima facie suggested the petitioner's involvement with co-accused who were already granted bail, the allegations primarily rested on statements requiring trial verification. Emphasizing Article 21 constitutional rights and citing prolonged incarceration without trial, the HC held that restrictive statutory provisions cannot override constitutional liberty when detention becomes punishment without trial. The court balanced the serious nature of offenses under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act with the accused's right to personal liberty, noting the bleak chances of trial completion within statutory timeframes given voluminous evidence.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Involvement of the petitioner in money laundering and illegal appointments.
2. Petitioner's entitlement to bail considering prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.
3. Applicability of section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and constitutional rights under Article 21.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Involvement in Money Laundering and Illegal Appointments:

The case involves allegations against the petitioner concerning illegal appointments in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET-2014) and money laundering. The Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) conducted searches and interrogations, leading to the petitioner's arrest. The investigation revealed that the petitioner allegedly received substantial sums for facilitating illegal appointments. The E.D. claims that documents and statements, including those from co-accused, indicate the petitioner's involvement in generating proceeds of crime. However, the petitioner argues that the wealth amassed does not equate to money laundering, and there is no direct evidence of a money trail implicating him. The petitioner was not named in the predicate offence, and the allegations primarily rely on statements from co-accused, which are not admissible as evidence.

2. Entitlement to Bail:

The petitioner has been in custody since March 2023, with the investigation still ongoing. The petitioner argues for bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and lack of direct evidence against him. The court considers the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that bail is a rule, and jail is an exception. The court notes that the petitioner is a first-time offender, and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon due to the extensive evidence and numerous accused involved. The court highlights the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, which mandates that prolonged pre-trial detention should not equate to punishment without trial.

3. Applicability of Section 45 and Constitutional Rights:

Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act imposes stringent conditions for bail, requiring the court to believe that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. However, the court refers to the Supreme Court's interpretation, which allows for bail if the accused is not named in the predicate offence, as in this case. The court also considers the constitutional mandate under Article 21, which overrides restrictive statutory provisions when the accused's right to a speedy trial is compromised. The court concludes that the petitioner's prolonged detention without trial infringes on his constitutional rights, warranting bail.

Conclusion:

The court grants bail to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions, recognizing the prolonged detention and delay in trial. The decision balances the statutory requirements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act with the constitutional rights enshrined in Article 21, emphasizing that the right to liberty should not be curtailed without just cause. The court's observations are limited to the bail application and do not influence the trial proceedings.

---