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>Money laundering accused gets bail after 3 years 10 months detention as undertrial period exceeds half of maximum sentence</h1> <h3>Anil Shivajirao Bhosale Versus Directorate of Enforcement</h3> Anil Shivajirao Bhosale Versus Directorate of Enforcement - 2025:BHC - AS:3628 The judgment involves a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Sections 45 and 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The application is filed by an individual accused in a money laundering case, seeking bail after prolonged incarceration.1. Issues Presented and Considered:The core legal issues considered in this judgment include:Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the CrPC, considering the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA.Whether the applicant's prolonged incarceration entitles him to bail under Section 436A of the CrPC, which limits the detention period for undertrial prisoners.The applicability of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in the context of PMLA offenses.2. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:The legal framework primarily involves the PMLA and the CrPC. Section 45 of the PMLA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. Section 436A of the CrPC provides for the release of undertrial prisoners who have been detained for more than half the maximum period of imprisonment for the offense charged. The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is also considered.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:The court acknowledges the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA but notes the exception provided by Section 436A of the CrPC, which allows for bail if the accused has served more than half of the maximum sentence. The court also considers the constitutional right to a speedy trial, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21.Key Evidence and Findings:The applicant has been in custody for over 4 years and 11 months, exceeding half of the maximum 7-year sentence for the offense. The court finds that the trial is unlikely to conclude soon, with 256 witnesses in the scheduled offenses and 150 in the ECIR case, and the investigation is ongoing.Application of Law to Facts:The court applies Section 436A of the CrPC, noting that the applicant has served more than half of the maximum sentence, and the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. The court also considers the recovery and securing of substantial amounts involved in the alleged crime.Treatment of Competing Arguments:The prosecution opposes bail, citing the applicant's major role in the alleged fraud and money laundering. However, the court balances this against the applicant's prolonged detention and the constitutional right to a speedy trial, ultimately favoring the applicant's release on bail.Conclusions:The court concludes that the applicant is entitled to bail under Section 436A of the CrPC, despite not fulfilling the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA, due to prolonged incarceration and the unlikely conclusion of the trial in a reasonable time.3. Significant Holdings:Core Principles Established:The judgment reinforces the principle that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which can override statutory restrictions on bail. The court also highlights the applicability of Section 436A of the CrPC in cases involving prolonged detention.Final Determinations on Each Issue:The court determines that the applicant should be released on bail, subject to stringent conditions, due to the prolonged detention exceeding half the maximum sentence and the unlikely conclusion of the trial soon.Order:The applicant is granted bail with a personal bond of Rs. 10,00,000/- and sureties.The applicant is restricted from entering District Pune except for trial-related purposes.The applicant must report to the Enforcement Directorate's Mumbai office twice a month.The applicant must not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.The applicant must surrender his passport and attend the trial regularly.The judgment underscores the balance between statutory provisions and constitutional rights, emphasizing the importance of the right to a speedy trial and the application of Section 436A of the CrPC in cases of prolonged detention. The court grants bail to the applicant, subject to conditions, recognizing the need to uphold constitutional rights while ensuring compliance with legal procedures.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
