TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riod of incarceration of about six years and two months undergone by the applicant, and in view of the fact that he has also been granted bail in the case pertaining to predicate offence by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the ground that the investigation has not been completed and the trial has not even begun, and considering that there seems to be no possibility of trial in this case concluding too within the remaining duration of the maximum prescribed sentence under Section 4 of PMLA, inasmuch as the same has not even begun as of now, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant, on furnishing a personal bond and surety in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each and on surrendering the passport before the learned Trial Court, which be not released without permission of this Court, considering that investigation qua the present applicant is still pending. The rest of the conditions be imposed by the learned Special Court, since as per order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the learned Trial Court has been directed to impose conditions as deemed appropriate while granting bail in predicate offence. 37. Taking into account the directions in order dated 18.02.2025 of the H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of bail and violate the applicant's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It is contended that the applicant has already undergone over 6 years and 4 months of incarceration in India, apart from 130 days in custody in the UAE prior to his extradition. The maximum sentence, if convicted, can be seven years, yet the trial has not even commenced. It is argued that in such circumstances, continuing to impose bail conditions, which the applicant cannot fulfil, would serve no legitimate purpose and would rather amount to a denial of liberty. 9. During the course of proceedings before this Court, the concerned Jail Superintendent was directed to produce the applicant through video-conferencing from the concerned Jail. The applicant herein had appeared and submitted that he had preferred the present application, through his counsel, as he has no one in India who can stand as a surety for him. 10. Conversely, the learned Special Counsel appearing for the DoE has opposed the present application and contended that insofar as the first condition i.e. furnishing a personal bond and surety in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- is concerned, the applicant herein is a foreign ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
......." 15. Pursuant to the above order, the CBI had moved an application seeking to place on record its request to impose appropriate conditions on the applicant herein for his release on bail. 16. In the meantime, this Court had granted regular bail to the applicant on 04.03.2025 in case arising out of the present ECIR. Except imposing two conditions, i.e. furnishing of personal bond and one surety, and of depositing his passport with the Trial Court, this Court had also directed the DoE to request the Trial Court to impose appropriate conditions on the applicant. After hearing arguments on behalf of the applicant/accused and the DoE, the learned Trial Court was pleased to impose the following conditions: "a) The accused shall mark his attendance physically in the office of CBI/IO once every 15 days after his release. b) The accused shall provide his mobile phone/E-mail to the IO and the Court immediately after his release, on which he shall always be available. c) The accused shall also provide his residential address in Delhi, where he will be residing after his release and shall immediately communicate to the Court and the IO, in case of change of his residential address.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 2814-2815 of 2024 in case titled as Frank Vitus Vs. Narcotics Control Bureau and Ors. decided on 06.01.2025, the IO/CBI are directed to immediately inform the concerned Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of The Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 about the grant of bail to his accused, so that the Registration Officer can bring the fact of grant of bail to the notice of the concerned civil authorities constituted as per Section 3 of the Foreigners Order 1948..." 18. Thereafter, as apparent from the order dated 11.03.2025, the learned counsel for the applicant had submitted before the learned Trial Court that the applicant needs to apply for a fresh British Passport online, for which necessary directions may be given to the jail authorities. The learned Trial Court had directed as under: " ...It is further submitted by the accused C.M. James that in terms of the bail conditions laid down by this Court vide order dated 07.03.2025, he needs to apply for a fresh British Passport, for which necessary directions may be given to the Jail Authorities to apply the said passport online at the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icant's passport) shall ensure that the applicant's fresh passport, whenever the same is ready, is not handed over to the applicant, but directly deposited with the learned Trial Court under intimation to this Court. 22. The second argument of the applicant pertains to modifying or waiving the condition of furnishing a surety bond, on the ground that he has no roots in India and there is no one who can stand surety for him. The applicant contends that he has no one in India who can stand as a surety for him and refusal to modify the said condition would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution; however, the DoE argues that furnishing a surety bond is a mandatory condition as per Section 441 of Cr.P.C. 23. Thus, the issue before this Court is as to whether this Court can dispense with the requirement that the applicant, who is an accused in the present ECIR - must furnish a surety bond - alongwith his personal bond? 24. In this regard, it shall be apposite to take note of the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in OBI Ogochukwa Stephen v. State (NCT of Delhi): 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7257, wherein a similar issue was decided. The Coordinate Bench was adjudicating two....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt's decisions in the Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee and Frank Vitus cases, it is clear that while bail conditions must be achievable by the prisoner, the court must still enforce those requirements that are necessary to ensure the availability of the prisoner for trial and for compliance with any sentence imposed, maintaining the integrity of the judicial process; and 27.9. After reviewing the judicial context, this court believes that the conditions imposed for grant of bail or suspension of sentence must pass muster on the anvil of the following criteria : First, the conditions must be necessary to ensure that the accused remains available for trial. Second, the conditions must be necessary to ensure that the integrity of the judicial process is preserved. Third, the conditions must not be impossible for the accused to fulfill. Only then the conditions imposed meet the aforesaid three-fold test, would they be proportionate, fair and correct balance between the right of a prisoner to be able to avail their liberty and for the State to enforce the law. 28. In light of the foregoing, the queries framed above are answered as follows: 28.1. It is permissible for a court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it is necessary to duly consider the facts and circumstances of a given case, and if necessary to seek appropriate verification, to be satisfied that the prisoner suffers from a genuine inability to furnish surety." (Emphasis added) 26. Therefore, the Coordinate Bench has held that while the requirement of furnishing a surety bond by a third person is the norm, the same may be waived or substituted with a cash deposit in exceptional cases, particularly where the accused or convict is able to demonstrate a genuine and verifiable inability to furnish surety. However, such waiver or substitution must not be granted mechanically or for mere convenience, but only after careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of each case, including verification where necessary. Importantly, the Court emphasized that the substitution of surety with a cash deposit does not, by itself, satisfy the underlying purpose of ensuring the accused's continued presence during trial, unless accompanied by additional conditions that effectively mitigate the flight risk and uphold the integrity of the judicial process. 27. In the present case, the applicant has remained in custody in India for a period of a....