TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....26, 838, 1071, 1072 and 1073 of 2023 were registered against the accused persons, who are the President and Secretary of the Kandala Service Cooperative Bank, Kandala, Maranalloor, Thiruvananthapuram ('Bank', in short), for committing the offence punishable under Sec.420 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that the President and Secretary of the Bank betrayed the trust of the complainants by accepting deposits from them after offering a high rate of interest with the intention of cheating the complainants. Even though the complainants requested the Bank to return their money on several occasions, the Bank failed to return their money. The accused have cheated the complainant in Crime No. 726/2023 Rs. 19,50,565/-; the complainant in Crime No. 838/2023 Rs. 53,24,821/-; the complainant in Crime No. 1071/2023 Rs. 26,38,747/-; the complainant in Crime No. 1072/2023 Rs. 10,10,070/-; and the complainant in Crime No. 1073/2023 Rs. 13,50,000/-. Thus, the accused have cheated the complainants of a total amount of Rs.1,22,74,203/-. As the offence under Sec. 420 is a scheduled offence under Sections 2 (1) (x) and 2 (1) (y) of the Act, it prima facie appears that the accused have committed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. On 21.12.2024, his examination has been conducted. 6. Today, the learned Government Pleader produced a copy of the Special Medical Board Report along with the forwarding letter of the Chairman of the Medical Board dated 30.12.2024, which shows that the petitioner is suffering from T2 DM Left inguinal hernia and is being evaluated for Hernioplasty. He is also diagnosed to have Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia. The petitioner needs continuous treatment and medication and has to be evaluated sequentially with blood test. The petitioner has undergone hernia surgery and needs followed up treatment in the Urology Out Patient Department for further follow up of Raised PSA. 7. In Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani Vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. [SLA. (Crl.)Nos.11376/2024], dated 14.10.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that in view of Section 45 (1) of the Act, that 'sick or infirm' person is entitled to be released on bail. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had, taking into consideration that the accused was in judicial custody for a year and three months and was suffering from physical illness and enlarged him on bail. 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This Court surveyed the entire law right from the judgment of this Court in the cases of Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh7, Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab8, Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar9, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb10 and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation11. The Court observed thus: "19. 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." 52. The Court also reproduced the observations made in Gudikanti Narasimhulu (supra), which read thus: "10. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court, (1978) 1 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncern of the State. 57. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant..............................................." 11. Subsequently in Senthil Balaji V v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC Online SC 2626] the Honourable Supreme Court has reiterated the principles in Manish Sisodia's case, by observing in the following lines: "27. Under the Statutes like PMLA, the minimum sentence is three years, and the maximum is seven years. The minimum sentence is higher when the scheduled offence is under the NDPS Act. When the trial of the complaint under PMLA is likely to prolong beyond reasonable limits, the Constitutional Courts will have to consider exercising their powers to grant bail. The reason is that Section 45 (1)(ii) does not confer power on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... courts, especially the Constitutional Courts, will have to take a call on a peculiar situation that arises in our justice delivery system. There are cases where clean acquittal is granted by the criminal courts to the accused after very long incarceration as an undertrial. When we say clean acquittal, we are excluding the cases where the witnesses have turned hostile or there is a bona fide defective investigation. In such cases of clean acquittal, crucial years in the life of the accused are lost. In a given case, it may amount to violation of rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution which may give rise to a claim for compensation. 29. As stated earlier, the appellant has been incarcerated for 15 months or more for the offence punishable under the PMLA. In the facts of the case, the trial of the scheduled offences and, consequently, the PMLA offence is not likely to be completed in three to four years or even more. 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. (emphasis supplied) 12. In the case on hand, the petitioner has been in ju....