2025 (10) TMI 270 - HC - Money Laundering

Alleged money-laundering purchaser granted bail after prolonged detention; bail set at Rs.10,000 plus two sureties

Mohammad Saddam Hussain Versus Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement Ranchi.

Petitioner, alleged purchaser in a money-laundering predicate offence and detained since 14-04-2023 (~2½ years), was granted bail by HC due to involvement ... Money Laundering - seeking grant of bail - predicate offence - purchaser of the illegally acquired property - right to speedy trial - HELD THAT:- What would transpire from the role assigned to the petitioner is of his involvement along with the other accused persons including Dilip Kumar Ghosh who has been arrayed as A-2 in the prosecution complaint. The said Dilip Kumar Ghosh has been granted bail in B.A. No. 7233 of 2023. The petitioner has remained in custody since 14-04-2023 i.e. about 2 years 6 months. There is no likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future. As observed in V. Senthil Balaji [2024 (9) TMI 1497 - SUPREME COURT] ‘If the appellant's detention is continued, it will amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of speedy trial’. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned Additioinal Judicial Commissioner-I–In-charge, Ranchi in connection with ECIR Case No. 01/2023 arising out of ECIR-RNZO/18/2022. This application stands allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is entitled to bail where trial of the scheduled (predicate) offences and the PMLA offence is not likely to conclude within a reasonable time and the accused has undergone a substantial portion of the minimum sentence, notwithstanding the statute's stringent bail provisions. 2. Whether constitutional jurisdiction (Article 21/read with writ jurisdiction) can be exercised to grant bail under such circumstances despite legislative restrictions intended to curb grant of bail in special statutes. 3. Whether the specific role attributed to the accused in the prosecution complaint - including alleged active participation in manufacturing fake deeds, concealing proceeds, and effecting transfers of non-saleable government/defence land - militates against grant of bail. 4. Appropriate bail conditions and safeguards if bail is to be granted in a money-laundering prosecution involving allegations of organised tampering of land records and proceeds of crime of substantial value. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 1: Bail entitlement where trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable time Legal framework: PMLA contains stringent statutory restrictions on grant of bail; minimum and maximum sentences (minimum three years, maximum seven years) are relevant in assessing reasonableness of continued detention. Fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 is engaged by prolonged pre-trial incarceration. Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on and followed the reasoning in higher-court decisions holding that statutory restrictions do not oust constitutional power to grant bail where trial delay and substantial incarceration risk violating Part III rights; earlier authorities establish that the 'rigours' of statutory provisions give way where trial is unlikely to be completed in a reasonable time and custody already exceeds a substantial part of prescribed sentence. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the duration of detention (approximately 2 years 6 months) against the minimum statutory sentence and the realistic timelines for completion of trials involving numerous witnesses and voluminous documents. Where prosecution requires examination of many witnesses and extensive documentary evidence, and no proximate conclusion of the trial is foreseeable, continued incarceration would amount to an infringement of the right to speedy trial. The statutory policy against bail must be balanced against constitutional guarantees; exceptional exercise of constitutional jurisdiction is warranted where delay is attributable to the complexity and volume of the case and where no reasonable prospect exists for early trial completion. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Constitutional courts may grant bail notwithstanding stringent statutory provisions where prolonged detention would violate Article 21 because trial completion is not in sight and detention has already consumed a substantial portion of the sentence. Obiter - Observations on factors to be considered (e.g., sentence range, statutory thresholds, outer limits) are illustrative but not exhaustive. Conclusion: Bail was found justified on grounds of unreasonable delay and substantial period of pre-trial detention; statutory restrictions did not bar relief in the circumstances. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 2: Exercise of constitutional jurisdiction to grant bail despite statutory curbs Legal framework: Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226/Article 32 (writ jurisdiction) permits courts to enforce fundamental rights; statutory bail bars (under special statutes) do not oust this jurisdiction entirely. Precedent Treatment: The Court expressly followed the principle that constitutional courts can harmonise statutory policy with fundamental rights and may relax statutory rigours where justified by delay or extraordinary circumstances; relied on authorities establishing that such powers are discretionary and to be exercised sparingly. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court reasoned that the legislative objective of preventing premature release must be weighed against the risk of converting statutory bail bars into instruments of indefinite detention when trial is not reasonably proximate. The discretion is informed by the experience of constitutional judges and contingent factors including duration of likely trial, sentence range, and whether delay is attributable to the accused. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Constitutional courts retain power to grant bail in appropriate cases notwithstanding statutory prohibitions, to protect Article 21. Obiter - The catalogue of factors to consider (duration, minimum/maximum sentence, outer limits) serves as guidance rather than a closed test. Conclusion: Constitutional jurisdiction to grant bail was rightly exercised given the facts; statutory restrictions were not absolute and were outweighed by Article 21 considerations. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 3: Weight of the prosecution case and accused's attributed role in denying bail Legal framework: In bail determinations courts must assess the nature of allegations, role ascribed to the accused, risk of tampering/absconding, and prospects of trial; serious involvement in organized laundering and large proceeds of crime are relevant for denial. Precedent Treatment: Authorities permit denial of bail where the accused's antecedents or role suggest risk to society or trial integrity; however, such considerations do not automatically override Article 21 concerns where delay is unreasonable and detention substantial. Interpretation and reasoning: The prosecution complaint alleged active and instrumental participation in manufacturing fake deeds, altering land records, laundering proceeds and acquisition/disposal of high-value land (commercial value stated). The Court acknowledged the serious nature of the allegations and that co-accused with purchaser role had been granted bail earlier. Nonetheless, the decisive factor was the absence of likelihood of early trial conclusion and the length of custody already undergone. The Court weighed the gravity of allegations against constitutional imperatives; there was no finding of exceptional antecedents or demonstrable risk of absconding that would justify continued detention pending an indeterminate trial. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Seriousness of allegations alone does not preclude bail where Article 21 concerns are paramount and trial delay is excessive; detailed role allegations are relevant but not necessarily determinative. Obiter - Comparative treatment of co-accused's bail/grant decisions provides context but does not bind the present exercise of discretion. Conclusion: Although role allegations were grave and related to substantial proceeds, they did not outweigh Article 21 concerns given prolonged custody and no imminent trial completion; bail was ordered subject to conditions. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS - Issue 4: Bail conditions and safeguards Legal framework: When granting bail in serious offences, courts may impose sureties, bonds and other conditions to secure attendance and preserve trial integrity and public interest. Precedent Treatment: Courts routinely tailor conditions (monetary bonds, sureties, reporting obligations, prohibition on contacting witnesses, surrender of travel documents) proportionate to offence gravity and risk assessment. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court balanced the need to protect the investigation and trial process against the right to liberty. Recognising the gravity of alleged offences and the value of proceeds, the Court nonetheless considered modest pecuniary sureties and bond sufficient to secure appearance and compliance where no specific risk of tampering or flight was established in the record before it. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Bail was granted subject to furnishing a bond and two sureties of modest amounts; conditions may be customized by the trial court to address any emergent risk. Obiter - Potential additional conditions (reporting, travel restrictions) are not expressly ordered here but are within trial court's supervisory competence. Conclusion: Bail was ordered on furnishing a specified bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court, providing a proportional safeguard consistent with the need to protect the trial process while upholding Article 21. FINAL CONCLUSION / CROSS-REFERENCES Cross-reference: Issues 1 and 2 are interlinked - the grant of bail flowed from exercise of constitutional jurisdiction to vindicate Article 21 in the face of statutory restrictions (see Issues 1-2). Issue 3 modifies the exercise of discretion but did not override constitutional concerns; Issue 4 implements the bail order through conditions. The Court allowed bail on specified conditions because prolonged detention without reasonable prospect of trial completion would infringe the accused's fundamental right to speedy trial.