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

Christian James Michel Versus Directorate Of Enforcement - 2025:DHC:142 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.