Back
H. P. SANDESH
K. Ramakrishna, S/o. Late Sri Krishnaiah – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Director, Directorate Of Enforcement, Bengaluru Zonal Office, Bengaluru – Respondent
ORDER :
H.P. Sandesh, J.
This successive bail petition is the third petition before this Court and this Court heard and dismissed the earlier petition and the same was challenged before the Apex Court and the Apex Court also dismissed the same and the petitioner again approached this Court and the same was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Trial Court once again seeking the relief on different grounds invoking Section 479(1) of BNSS, 2023 and also on the ground that there is a delay in trial and trial has not yet commenced and he has been in custody from two years seven months.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that maximum punishment is upto seven years and minimum sentence is three years under Section 5 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (‘PML Act’ for short) and he was arrested on 14.02.2022 and the very observation of the Trial Court is that another case is filed and it is not a case of multiple case. The reasons of the Trial Court are not correct. The learned counsel contend that the judgment of the Apex Court is very clear that BNSS is applicable.
3. The learned counsel in support of his arguments relies upon the order passed by
The court ruled that serious allegations under the PML Act and multiple pending cases justify the denial of bail, despite the petitioner's prolonged custody.
Release of undertrial prisoners on bail – Accused cannot invoke proviso under Section 479 of BNSS seeking relief on the ground of one third punishment When offences are different as well as when more....
The Court emphasized the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, asserting that undue delays in trial violate this right and warrant bail, even for serious offenses.
The court established that under Section 479(1) of the BNSS, an unconvicted individual may be released on bail after serving a specified period of detention.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution prevails, allowing bail under Section 436A of the CrPC despite statutory restrictions in the PMLA.
The court emphasized the right to a speedy trial and liberty, allowing bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act after 15 months of custody, citing no likelihood of trial commencement.
Accused in money laundering must meet stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, reflecting the severity of the offense and impact on ongoing investigations.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the constitutional validity of Section 45(1) of the PML Act and the subsequent amendments, as well as the importance of speedy trial and the right ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
