Delhi Riots : Undertrial Granted Bail Under Section 436-A Cr.P.C. After Serving Half Sentence in PMLA Case - 2025-03-31

Tahir Hussain Granted Bail in PMLA Case After Serving Half Sentence

Karkardooma Court, Delhi – March 29, 2025 – In a significant order, the Shahdara Court in Karkardooma, Delhi, granted bail to Tahir Hussain, an accused in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case, citing Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). Additional Sessions Judge Sameer Bajpai presided over the matter, allowing Hussain's bail application after observing that he had undergone detention for more than half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the alleged offense.

Case Background

Tahir Hussain was arrested in connection with multiple FIRs, including FIR No. 59/2020 and related cases, involving serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and subsequently under the PMLA. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated proceedings against Hussain based on these predicate offenses, alleging money laundering related to the anti-CAA protests and communal riots in North East Delhi in 2020. He was formally arrested by the ED on August 20, 2020, while already in judicial custody for another case. Charges under Section 4 of the PMLA were framed against him on November 3, 2022.

Arguments for Bail

Hussain's defense primarily rested on Section 436-A Cr.P.C., which mandates bail for undertrial prisoners who have served half of the maximum sentence for their alleged offense. Advocate for Hussain argued that since the maximum sentence under Section 4 of the PMLA is seven years, Hussain, having been in custody for over four years, qualified for bail under this provision. It was also argued that the trial in the predicate offenses was significantly delayed, with charges not even framed in FIR No. 59/2020, thus prolonging the PMLA case indefinitely. Reliance was placed on several Supreme Court and High Court judgments, including Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar vs. Directorate of E.D. and Sharjeel Imam vs. State of NCT of Delhi , to support the bail plea.

Prosecution's Opposition

The prosecution, represented by the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), vehemently opposed the bail application. They argued that the gravity of the economic offense, which allegedly fueled communal riots resulting in deaths and property damage, was a significant factor. The prosecution highlighted that the proceeds of crime were estimated to be around Rs. 5.24 crores, with investigations linking Rs. 1.5 crore to Hussain's fraudulent withdrawals used in riots. They invoked the proviso to Section 436-A, arguing for continued detention due to the severity of the offense and multiple FIRs against Hussain. The prosecution also attempted to attribute delay in the trial to Hussain, citing 463 days of adjournments allegedly sought by him. Judgments like Vijay Madanlal Choudhary vs. Union of India and Gautam Kundu vs. Enforcement Directorate were cited to emphasize the court's discretion to deny bail in serious economic offenses.

Court's Analysis and Decision

Judge Bajpai meticulously examined the arguments and the provisions of Section 436-A Cr.P.C. The court scrutinized the prosecution's claim of delay caused by Hussain. After reviewing the dates of adjournments, the court significantly reduced the delay attributable to the applicant to 241 days, finding many adjournments were due to court reasons or other factors not solely attributable to Hussain. Despite the reduced delay, the court acknowledged that Hussain had still served more than half of the seven-year maximum sentence, even after excluding the delay.

The court emphasized the intent behind Section 436-A, referencing the Sharjeel Imam vs. State of NCT of Delhi judgment by the Delhi High Court, which had overturned a similar denial of bail by the same lower court. The High Court in Sharjeel Imam had underscored that the severity of allegations alone should not be grounds to deny bail under Section 436-A and that the provision's purpose was to prevent prolonged undertrial detention.

> "We have to be mindful of the objective behind incorporating Section 436-A Cr.P.C. This benevolent provision has been introduced by Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act 2005 with the idea that no undertrial prisoner is detained in jail beyond half of the maximum sentence provided for such offences. Undoubtedly, as per proviso, Court can order further detention but the reasons have to be rational and logical, else the very purpose of introducing the provision would stand defeated." - Excerpt from Sharjeel Imam vs. State of NCT of Delhi as quoted in the judgment.

Relying on this precedent and the spirit of Section 436-A, the court concluded that Hussain was entitled to bail.

Bail Conditions

While granting bail, the court imposed stringent conditions to ensure Hussain's presence and cooperation in the ongoing proceedings:

Personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of like amount.

Restriction from leaving the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi/NCR without court permission.

Prohibition from involvement in similar criminal activities.

Restriction from contacting or influencing witnesses.

Mandatory court attendance on every hearing date.

Requirement to inform the court of any change in residential address.

Restriction from making statements on social media regarding the pending cases.

This judgment underscores the importance of Section 436-A Cr.P.C. in safeguarding the rights of undertrial prisoners and reinforces the principle that prolonged detention without trial should be an exception, not the rule, even in cases involving serious allegations.