Back
Grants Bail to Masasasong Ao, Overrides PMLA Rigours
In a significant ruling, the granted regular bail to Masasasong Ao, an alleged Naga insurgent who had been in custody for nearly four years under the . Justice Sanjeev Narula held that while the had material requiring trial, prolonged cannot be allowed to assume a , and the constitutional guarantee under cannot be eclipsed by the nature of the accusation.
The Case So Far
The case originates from an FIR registered in after co-accused Alemla Jamir was intercepted at Delhi Airport carrying ₹72 lakh in cash, allegedly meant for the banned organisation . The took over the investigation and filed a charge-sheet under the , among other offences. Based on these scheduled offences, the ED registered a money laundering case and arrested Ao on .
The ED alleged that approximately ₹173.24 crore was deposited and routed through 59 bank accounts opened in the names of Jamir, her relatives and associated entities. Ao, a serving government employee, was accused of allowing his bank accounts to be used for laundering , including through substantial withdrawals and deposits made after Jamir's arrest.
Arguments Before the Court
Ao's counsel, , argued that the accounts in question were substantially operated by Alemla Jamir, a close relative, and that Ao had merely opened them at her instance and handed over signed cheque books. He emphasised that the investigation was complete, the complaint and supplementary complaint had been filed, and Ao had already undergone one-half of the maximum sentence of seven years prescribed under .
The ED, represented by , countered that Ao's role went beyond being a passive account holder. They pointed to transactions undertaken by Ao himself after Jamir's arrest, including withdrawals of over ₹1 crore and dealings with funds received from . The statement of P. Impty, alleging that Ao directed the transfer of ₹1.18 crore, was also pressed into service. The ED argued that Ao had failed to satisfy the under .
Legal Analysis: Balancing Section 45 and
The Court first addressed the mandatory under , which require the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit an offence while on bail. Relying on the 's decision in , the Court clarified that at the bail stage, it is not required to delve deep into the merits or meticulously weigh the evidence. The enquiry is confined to assessing, on broad probabilities, whether there is a genuine case against the accused.
Applying this standard, the Court found that while the ED had material that supported its case, Ao's explanation — that the accounts were substantially controlled by Jamir — could not be dismissed as a bare denial at this stage. The Court observed that whether the transactions established knowing involvement in money laundering would have to be tested at trial.
On the second condition — likelihood of committing an offence while on bail — the Court noted that the transactions relied upon by the ED dated back to -20 and that Ao had no other criminal antecedents. As a government employee with a permanent residence and satisfactory jail conduct, the Court was satisfied that the risk could be addressed through appropriate conditions.
The Court then turned to the period of incarceration. Ao had been in custody since , crossing the halfway mark of the maximum seven-year sentence on . By , he had already undergone three years, nine months and six days in custody, approaching four years of incarceration. The trial, with 27 prosecution witnesses cited, had seen only five examined as of , with nothing on record suggesting it was nearing conclusion.
Invoking , a beneficial provision founded on the constitutional right to a under , the Court observed that the statutory protection against excessive undertrial detention operates in PMLA proceedings as well, as affirmed by the in . The Court noted that the delay was not attributable to Ao.
The Court also relied on and to hold that where documentary evidence has already been seized, the possibility of tampering stands eliminated, and prolonged incarceration may warrant bail by a constitutional court where trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time.
Key Observations
" cannot be permitted to assume a ; remains the governing constitutional command."
"Seriousness cannot be the complete answer to the length of custody in the PMLA case."
"The two prosecutions are distinct, and the maximum punishment with which this Court is presently concerned remains seven years. Arvind Dham reiterates that is not eclipsed by the nature of the accusation."
"To continue the Applicant's detention until an uncertain end of trial would allow pre-trial custody to assume a . Section 45 does not require that result, and does not permit it."
The Court's Decision
Justice Narula allowed the bail application, directing Ao's release on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety of the like amount. The Court imposed several conditions: Ao must cooperate with further investigation, surrender his passport and not leave India without permission, provide his current residential address and mobile number, appear before the trial court as required, and not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. The Court clarified that the order concerns only the PMLA proceedings and that if Ao is required to remain in custody in the or any other case, his release shall be governed by the orders passed in those proceedings.
The ruling reinforces the principle that even in stringent statutes like the PMLA, the constitutional guarantee of under remains paramount, and prolonged cannot be justified solely by the seriousness of the allegations.
