2025 (3) TMI 1402 - HC - Money Laundering

Prolonged detention over six years without trial violates right to speedy trial under PMLA Section 45

Christian James Michel Versus Directorate Of Enforcement

Delhi HC granted regular bail to applicant in money laundering case related to AgustaWestland helicopter scam. Despite stringent PMLA Section 45 ... Seeking grant of regular bail - prolonged detention - right to speedy trial - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - alleged AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter scam - routing illicit funds through shell companies - alleged bribe payments through middlemen - HELD THAT:- This Court notes that the learned counsel for the applicant primarily argued the present bail application on the ground of delay in concluding investigation and consequently the trial, and placed reliance on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby the applicant herein has been granted bail in the predicate offence – on the ground of delay in trial itself - this Court has given consideration to the material placed on record as well as the stage of the investigation and the fact that in the present case, though the applicant has been in judicial custody for more than six years, investigation in the case has yet not been concluded, charges have not been framed and the trial has not begun. This Court while deciding the present bail application, in the backdrop of the fact that applicant has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the predicate offence, has considered the issue of grant of bail to the applicant viz-a-viz the delay in conclusion of investigation and initiation of trial, especially the fact that the applicant has almost completed the period of judicial custody equivalent to the maximum punishment attracted in the present case i.e. under Section 4 of PMLA. Considering these circumstances, the merits of the allegations against the applicant were not considered at this stage. In cases under PMLA, while the legislature has incorporated stringent provisions such as Section 45 to regulate the grant of bail, by prescribing the twin test, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that such provisions must be harmoniously interpreted with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has also been held that the statutory bar under such bail provisions cannot be permitted to override an accused’s right to speedy trial, nor can statutory restrictions be construed as a tool for indefinite incarceration. In Prem Prakash v. Union of India [2024 (8) TMI 1412 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the fundamental right to speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and held that keeping persons behind bars for unlimited periods of time, in the hope of speedy completion of trial, would deprive the fundamental right of persons under Article 21. This Court is of the view that while Section 45 of PMLA imposes stringent conditions for the grant of bail, constitutional courts, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court, have also emphasized time and again that this provision cannot be interpreted in a manner, to confine the accused in judicial custody for an indefinite period of time. As noted above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in multiple decisions, has held that the right to bail must be read into such provisions where there is an inordinate delay in the completion of trial which effectively converts pre-trial custody into a punitive sentence. The present case presents an exceptional situation where the applicant has already been in custody for over six years and two months, yet the trial has not even commenced due to the incomplete investigation. Such prolonged incarceration, without any foreseeable conclusion of trial, would infringe upon the applicant’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Section 436A of the Cr.P.C. is a statutory safeguard designed to prevent excessive and disproportionate pre-trial detention. It provides that an accused, who has undergone detention for a period equivalent to one-half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence, shall ordinarily be released on bail unless the court, for reasons recorded in writing, directs otherwise. In the context of offences under PMLA, where the maximum sentence is ordinarily seven years, the one-half threshold would be three and a half years. Although the proviso to Section 436A of Cr.P.C. allows the court to extend the period of detention beyond the one-half threshold based on the facts of the case, yet such extended detention cannot be indefinite and the Courts must assess the necessity of continued incarceration in light of the specific facts, the stage of the trial, and the overall interests of justice. While the proviso to Section 436A allows courts to extend detention beyond this period in exceptional circumstances, the present case is not one where the applicant’s custody is only marginally beyond the halfway mark. Instead, the applicant has been in custody for over six years and two months – which is alarmingly close to the maximum punishment – without even being adjudicated guilty. It was pointed out that more than 100 witnesses are to be examined in the present case and there are more than 1000 documents relied upon by the prosecution. Given that the trial is unlikely to conclude before the applicant completes even seven years in jail, further incarceration would render the entire purpose of a trial meaningless. In this Court’s opinion, the prolonged incarceration of the accused, of about six years and two months, and the fact that investigation is not yet complete and trial has not yet begun, and there are more than 100 witness to be examined in this case, would entitle him to grant of regular bail, thereby overriding the statutory bar under Section 45 of PMLA and proviso to Section 436A of Cr.P.C. Considering the period of incarceration of about six years and two months undergone by the applicant, and in view of the fact that he has also been granted bail in the case pertaining to predicate offence by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that the investigation has not been completed and the trial has not even begun, and considering that there seems to be no possibility of trial in this case concluding too within the remaining duration of the maximum prescribed sentence under Section 4 of PMLA, inasmuch as the same has not even begun as of now, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant, on furnishing a personal bond and surety in the sum of ₹5,00,000/- each and on surrendering the passport before the learned Trial Court, which be not released without permission of this Court, considering that investigation qua the present applicant is still pending. Conclusion - The applicant's prolonged detention without trial violates his right to a speedy trial under Article 21. Application allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment include:Whether the applicant, Christian James Michel, should be granted bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), given the prolonged pre-trial detention and delay in trial commencement.Whether the applicant's prolonged detention without trial violates his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Whether the applicant poses a flight risk, justifying the denial of bail.How the provisions of Section 45 of PMLA and Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) apply to the applicant's bail application.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Prolonged Detention and Right to Speedy TrialThe applicant argued that his detention without trial for over six years violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial. The Court considered the delay in the investigation and trial commencement, noting that the applicant has been in custody for a period equivalent to the maximum sentence prescribed under Section 4 of PMLA. The Court referenced several Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that prolonged pre-trial detention should not become a punitive sentence, thereby infringing on the accused's fundamental rights.2. Application of Section 45 of PMLASection 45 of PMLA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring the accused to demonstrate that there are reasonable grounds to believe they are not guilty and are unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. However, the Court noted that these conditions must be harmoniously interpreted with Article 21. The Supreme Court has held that statutory bars under such provisions cannot override the right to a speedy trial.3. Application of Section 436A of Cr.P.C.Section 436A of Cr.P.C. provides that an accused who has served more than half of the maximum sentence may be considered for release on bail. The Court noted that the applicant has been in custody for over six years, far exceeding the one-half threshold of three and a half years for a maximum seven-year sentence under PMLA. The Court emphasized that extended detention cannot be indefinite, and further incarceration would render the trial meaningless.4. Flight RiskThe Directorate of Enforcement (DoE) argued that the applicant is a flight risk, citing his past conduct of evading investigation and the need for extradition from the UAE. However, the Court found that this argument was insufficient to deny bail, especially since the Supreme Court had already granted bail in the predicate offense and directed the trial court to impose necessary conditions.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the applicant's prolonged detention without trial violates his right to a speedy trial under Article 21. It emphasized that the statutory conditions under Section 45 of PMLA must be balanced with constitutional rights, and prolonged pre-trial detention should not be used as a tool for indefinite incarceration.The Court granted bail to the applicant, subject to conditions, including furnishing a personal bond and surety, surrendering the passport, and cooperating with the investigation and trial. The Court directed the trial court to impose additional conditions as deemed appropriate.In conclusion, the Court recognized the applicant's right to bail due to the inordinate delay in trial commencement and the fact that he has already served a period equivalent to the maximum sentence under PMLA without being adjudicated guilty.