TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 custody and delayed trial: gravity assessed case-by-case under Article 21, leading to regular bail</h1> Regular bail under the money-laundering statute was considered on whether continued custody was justified in light of offence gravity and the accused's ... Money Laundering - seeking grant of regular bail - allegation of appellant being the ultimate beneficiary of the fraud which was a wellorchestrated scheme - diversion and siphoning of public funds through layered entities, resulting in substantial wrongful loss to Public Sector Banks - HELD THAT:- The court while dealing with the prayer for grant of bail has to consider gravity of offence, which has to be ascertained in the facts and circumstances of each case. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of offences is also the term of sentence i.e., prescribed for the offence, the accused is alleged to have committed. The court has also to take into account the object of the special Act, the gravity of offence and the attending circumstances along with period of sentence. All economic offences cannot be classified into one group as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the Court to categorize all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis. It is well settled that if the State or any prosecuting agency including, the court, concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused, to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. The record reveals that the prosecution complaint was filed on 06.09.2024. The Special Judge issued notice on 07.09.2024 to all proposed accused persons under the proviso to Section 223 of BNSS. The respondent challenged the said order before the High Court, resulting in eight months stay of proceedings, before the Special Judge, which was lifted on 23.05.2025 only upon withdrawal of the petition. The delay in the trial is thus attributable only to the respondent, not the appellant - The appellant has been in custody since 09.07.2024. The disposal of immovable properties occurred on 24.12.2024 and 17.02.2025 and pertains to M/s Marichika Properties, with which no material link to the appellant has been established. There is no evidence that the appellant was signatory to any sale document. The allegation of dissipation of proceeds of crime by him is, therefore, untenable at this stage. The impugned judgment and order dated 19.08.2025 is quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed. Issues: Whether the appellant is entitled to grant of regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 during the pendency of trial.Analysis: The appellant has been in custody since 09.07.2024 for about 16 months and 20 days while the maximum sentence attractable is seven years. Investigation qua the appellant is recorded as concluded and no cognizance has been taken; the proceedings are at the stage of scrutiny of documents with 210 witnesses and there is no likelihood of trial commencing in the near future. Documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution is already in its custody, reducing risk of tampering. The allegation of influencing a witness does not inspire confidence as the relevant witness was arrayed after the appellant's arrest. Delay in commencement of trial is attributable to the respondent for having obtained an interim stay which lasted eight months. The nature of economic offences varies and cannot be treated as a homogeneous class for blanket denial of bail; prolonged pretrial incarceration where trial is not progressing may violate the right to speedy trial under Article 21.Conclusion: Appeal allowed; appellant shall be released on bail during the pendency of trial under the PMLA; terms and conditions of bail to be fixed by the Trial Court; appellant to provide a contact telephone number to the Enforcement Directorate, surrender his passport to the Trial Court and not leave India without the Trial Court's permission.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
