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 in money laundering case after 18 months custody without evidence of proceeds recovery</h1> <h3>Dr. Kishore Bisure Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr.</h3> Dr. Kishore Bisure Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. - 2025:BHC - AS:6860 ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment include:Whether the Applicant, accused of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), is entitled to bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 45 of the PMLA.Whether the Applicant's alleged involvement in signing and approving fabricated invoices constitutes a basis for denying bail.The applicability of the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA in the context of the Applicant's prolonged incarceration and the likelihood of trial conclusion.The role of the Applicant in the alleged fraudulent activities and whether there is prima facie evidence of receiving proceeds of crime.Whether the Applicant's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, regarding speedy trial and personal liberty, have been violated due to prolonged detention without trial.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Entitlement to Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Section 45 PMLA:The Applicant sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., read with Section 45 of the PMLA. The legal framework requires the Public Prosecutor to be given an opportunity to oppose bail, and the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. The Court considered the Applicant's prolonged detention, cooperation with the investigation, and the absence of direct evidence linking him to the proceeds of crime.2. Applicant's Alleged Involvement in Fraudulent Activities:The prosecution alleged that the Applicant, as Dean of the Dahisar Jumbo Covid Center, approved fabricated invoices based on falsified attendance sheets. However, the Court noted that the Applicant's role was limited to verifying 15 out of 82 invoices, and the preparation and verification of attendance sheets were primarily the responsibility of other staff members. The Court found no prima facie evidence of the Applicant's direct involvement in the preparation of fraudulent invoices or receipt of proceeds of crime.3. Applicability of Twin Conditions under Section 45 PMLA:The Court addressed whether the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA should be applied mechanically, given the Applicant's prolonged detention and the lack of prima facie evidence. The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments emphasizing that prolonged incarceration without trial could violate Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court concluded that the stringent conditions for bail under Section 45 should not be used to incarcerate the accused for an unreasonably long time without trial.4. Fundamental Rights under Article 21:The Court considered the Applicant's right to a speedy trial and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Given the Applicant's cooperation with the investigation, lack of evidence of tampering, and the unlikelihood of trial conclusion in the near future, the Court found that continued detention would violate the Applicant's fundamental rights.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that:The Applicant is entitled to bail, subject to specific conditions, given the absence of prima facie evidence of involvement in money laundering and the prolonged detention without trial.The twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA should not be applied mechanically, especially when there is no likelihood of trial conclusion within a reasonable time.Prolonged incarceration without trial violates the Applicant's fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, warranting the relaxation of stringent bail conditions.Core Principles Established:The principle that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception' should guide the application of bail provisions, even under stringent statutes like the PMLA.Constitutional Courts have the discretion to grant bail when prolonged detention without trial risks violating fundamental rights.Final Determinations on Each Issue:The Applicant is granted bail, with conditions ensuring cooperation with the trial process and preventing tampering with evidence.The Court emphasized the need for expeditious trial proceedings and the balance between statutory provisions and constitutional rights.The judgment underscores the importance of safeguarding individual liberty and ensuring that statutory provisions align with constitutional mandates, particularly in cases of prolonged pre-trial detention.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
