HRISHIKESH ROY, S. V. N. BHATTI
Vijay Nair – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
ORDER
1. As the petitioner is in jail, delay stands condoned.
2. Heard Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Ms. Rebecca M. John, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Suryaprakash V. Raju, learned ASG appearing for the Directorate of Enforcement.
3. The present SLP challenges the order of the Delhi High Court rejecting Bail of Vijay Nair who is a co-accused in Delhi Excise policy scam. It is alleged that the petitioner acted as a middleman and was involved in irregularities in framing and implementing the Delhi Excise policy.
4. In support of the bail plea for the petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 13.11.2022 and has now been in custody for about 22 months. It is then pointed out that since the charge is of money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, the “Act”), the maximum punishment in the event of conviction is 7 years and as such further detention will not be justified. The bail having been granted to the co-accused (Manish Sisodia and Kalvakuntla Kavitha) are also referred on behalf of the petitioner to claim bail on parity.
5. On the other hand, Mr. S.V. Raju, learned ASG wo
Kalvakuntla Kavitha v Directorate of Enforcement
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India
Ramkripal Meena v Directorate of Enforcement 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2276 [Para 9] – Relied
Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v State of Maharashtra and Anr 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 [Para 9] – Relied
Manish Sisodia v Directorate of Enforcement 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920] [Para 9 & 10] – Relied
Prem Prakash v. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement
PMLA Section 45 twin conditions yield to Article 21 where prolonged pre-trial detention exceeds reasonable time without trial progress, converting detention to punishment; bail granted as rule when e....
PMLA Section 45 twin conditions relaxable by constitutional courts for bail if prolonged custody (over 2 years) and unlikely timely trial violate Article 21, absent accused delay, with voluminous doc....
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution mandates that an undertrial cannot be detained beyond one-half of the maximum imprisonment period without trial, leading to bail being....
Bail – Delay and long detention in custody cannot be a ground for grant of bail in cases of money laundering.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution mandates that an undertrial cannot be detained beyond half of the maximum sentence without trial, warranting bail under Section 436-A ....
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 mandates release under Section 436-A of the CrPC after serving half of the maximum imprisonment period, regardless of the nature of the offence.
Prolonged pre-trial incarceration may justify bail under NDPS Act when there is no substantial evidence against the accused and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 is violated.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21 of the Constitution, and prolonged incarceration without trial violates this right, warranting bail.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.