2024 (12) TMI 1459 - SCH - Money Laundering

High Court Grants Bail Due to Trial Delays in PMLA Case; Emphasizes Fair Role of Public Prosecutor.

The HC granted bail to the appellants, who had been in custody for over a year without charges being framed under the PMLA. The court applied precedent, ... Seeking grant of bail - appellants are in custody for about one year and one month but charge has not been framed in a complaint filed under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 - delayed trials - role of the Public Prosecutor in opposing bail applications - HELD THAT:- It is well settled that a Public Prosecutor has to be fair. If a case is covered by a binding precedent, it is his duty to point out the said aspect to the Court. Perhaps what the learned Judge intended to was that when the Public Prosecutor is satisfied that the trial has been delayed on account of default or conduct on the part of Enforcement Directorate, the Public Prosecutor should take a fair stand. However, the aforesaid observations will not prevent Public Prosecutors from opposing a bail petition on the ground that act or omissions on the part of Enforcement Directorate are not responsible for the delay of trial. Therefore, this order cannot be read to mean that the Public Prosecutors are not entitled to oppose the bail petitions. Conclusion - Undue delay in trial proceedings, particularly without charges being framed, can justify granting bail. Application disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the appellants, who have been in custody for over a year without charges being framed under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), should be granted bail.What is the role of the Public Prosecutor in opposing bail applications, particularly when trial delays are attributed to the conduct of the Enforcement Directorate (ED)Rs.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Bail for Appellants under PMLARelevant legal framework and precedents: The court referred to the precedent set in the case of V. Senthil Balaji versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, which provides guidance on granting bail when trials are delayed.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted that the appellants had been in custody for an extended period without charges being framed and accepted their undertakings. The court emphasized that the trial was unlikely to commence soon, necessitating the application of the precedent to grant bail.Key evidence and findings: The court acknowledged the substantial volume of evidence (29 witnesses and approximately 4000 pages of documents) and the delay in framing charges as critical factors.Application of law to facts: The court applied the legal principles from the precedent to the facts, concluding that the appellants should be enlarged on bail due to the delay in the trial process.Treatment of competing arguments: The court considered the undertakings provided by the appellants and the potential for further delays in the trial, weighing these against the need for continued custody.Conclusions: The court concluded that the appellants should be granted bail, subject to appropriate terms and conditions, including adherence to their undertakings.Issue 2: Role of Public Prosecutor in Bail OppositionsRelevant legal framework and precedents: The court referred to the established principle that a Public Prosecutor must act fairly and highlight binding precedents to the court.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court clarified that while Public Prosecutors should not oppose bail when delays are due to the ED's conduct, they are not precluded from opposing bail on other grounds.Key evidence and findings: The court examined the observations made by the Special Court, which suggested that the Public Prosecutor should not oppose bail if the delay was caused by the ED.Application of law to facts: The court clarified that the observations did not restrict Public Prosecutors from opposing bail petitions when the ED is not responsible for trial delays.Treatment of competing arguments: The court balanced the need for fair conduct by Public Prosecutors with their duty to oppose bail where justified.Conclusions: The court concluded that the Public Prosecutor's role remains to act fairly and independently, without undue influence from the ED or its Director.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'It is well settled that a Public Prosecutor has to be fair. If a case is covered by a binding precedent, it is his duty to point out the said aspect to the Court.'Core principles established: The court reinforced the principle that undue delay in trial proceedings, particularly without charges being framed, can justify granting bail. It also reiterated the independence of Public Prosecutors in deciding whether to oppose bail applications.Final determinations on each issue: The appellants were granted bail, and the role of the Public Prosecutor was clarified to ensure fair conduct in line with established legal principles.