TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (10) TMI 239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ctions 3/4/5 of the Pries Cheat and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1976. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and as materials surfaced revealing commission of Schedule offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter "PML Act‟) the complaint under Section 45 was lodged before the Special Judge, Bhubaneswar which was registered as Crl. Misc.(PMLA) Case No.34 of 2016 and the learned Special Judge, Bhubaneswar by order dated 1st November, 2016 took cognizance of the offences under Section 3 of the PML Act, punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. The present Petitioner is one amongst 7 accused persons in the aforestated case. 3. The allegations leveled against the Petitioner is that, he was the Director of Arthatatwa Infra India Pvt. Ltd. and also the Finance Manager of Arthatatwa Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. The Petitioner was looking after the accounts related deposits collected from the public and thereafter depositing the cheques as well as supervising the works related to accounts, deposits, payments, etc. He being aware of all the financial transactions and collection of money from public with false promise of high returns, was actively ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r, 2017 on the strength of production warrant issued by the said Court. Thus, in negating the contentions of both parties, the period of custody of the Petitioner in the present case is counted from 16th October, 2017. 7. Section 45 of PML Act prescribes, inter alia that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no accused person shall be released on bail unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 8. The Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v. K.A. Nazeeb, (Crl. Appeal No.98 of 2021, decided on 1st February, 2021) while dealing with a matter relating to regular bail granted to the Respondent by Kerala High Court in connection with different offences under the unlawful activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and other offences, have observed as follows: "9. It must be emphasised at the outset that there is a vivid distinction between the parameters to be applied while considering a bail application, visàvis those applicable while deciding a petition for its cancellation. In Puran v. R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng similarly situated accused under the UAPA passed by this Court in Angela Harish Sontakke v. State of Maharashtra {SLP (Crl.) No. 6888 of 2015, Order dated 04.05.2016}. That was also a case under Sections 10, 13, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 21, 38, 39 and 40(2) of the UAPA. This Court in its earnest effort to draw balance between the seriousness of the charges with the period of custody suffered and the likely period within which the trial could be expected to be completed took note of the five years‟ incarceration and over 200 witnesses left to be examined, and thus granted bail to the accused notwithstanding Section 43D(5) of UAPA. Similarly, in Sagar Tatyaram Gorkhe v.State of Maharashtra {SLP (Crl.) No. 7947 of 2015, Order dated 03.01.2017}, an accused under the UAPA was enlarged for he had been in jail for four years and there were over 147 witnesses still unexamined. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 16. This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial. 19. Adverting to the case at hand, we are conscious of the fact that the charges levelled against the respondent are grave and a serious threat to societal harmony. Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent‟s prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail. An attempt has been made to strike a balance between the appellant‟s right to lead evidence of its choice and establish the charges beyond any doubt and simultaneously the respondent‟s rights guaranteed under Part III of our Constitution have been well protected. 20. Yet another reason which persuades us to enlarge the Respondent on bail is that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS. Unlike the NDPS where the competent Court needs to be satisfied that prima facie the accused is not guilty and that he is unlikely to commit another offence while on bail; there is no such pre....