Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
Suryaji Pandurang Jadhav - Applicant
Versus
The Directorate of Enforcement, Worli & anr. - Respondents
Bail Application No. 2023 OF 2023
Decided On : 19-09-2024
Bail - Money Laundering - Section 439 Cr.P.C., Section 45 PMLA - The court interpreted the provisions of bail under the PMLA and Cr.P.C., emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the conditions for granting bail despite statutory restrictions.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of the PMLA after being arrested in a money laundering case. He argued that he had been in custody for over four years and had completed half of the maximum punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicant had completed more than half of the maximum punishment and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, thus entitling him to bail under Section 436A of the Cr.P.C. despite the opposition from the prosecution.
Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to bail under the provisions of the PMLA and Cr.P.C. given the duration of his custody and the right to a speedy trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution can override the stringent provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA, especially when the accused has undergone significant pre-trial detention.
Result: The applicant was granted bail with specific conditions.
JUDGMENT :
Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ponda, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Shirsat, learned APP for Respondent No. 1 – Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and Ms. Shinde, learned APP for Respondent No. 2 – State.
2. This regular Bail Application is preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’) r/w. Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) in ECIR/MB/ZO- II/03/2020 lodged by Respondent No. 1 - ED. The relevant details are as follows:
| 1. | ECIR No. C.R./F.I.R. Number (Scheduled Offence) | ECIR/MB/ZO-II/03/2020 C. R. No. 0026/2020 |
| 2. | Date of Scheduled offence | 2017 to 2018 |
| 3. | Date of Registration of ECIR No. C.R./F.I.R. Number (Scheduled Offence) | 08.01.2020 |
| 4. | Prosecuting Agency
Name of the Police Station of scheduled offence | Enforcement Directorate
Shivaji Nagar, Pune |
| 5. | Sections invoked
Scheduled offences | Section 3 r/w. 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
Sections 420 r/w. 34, 406, 408, 409, 465, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 |
| 6. | Date of arrest of the Applicant in Scheduled Offence
Date of arrest in ECIR | 24.02.2020
05.03.2021 |
| 7. | Date of filing of Charge- sheet in Scheduled Offence
ECIR Complaint | Charge-sheet bearing No. 32/2020 dated 18th May 2020
April 2021 |
| 8. | Status of Bail Application in scheduled offence | Scheduled Offence – Bail granted on 2nd March 2023 by a learned Single Judge in B. A. No. 2006 of 2021 |
| 9. | Main grounds for seeking bail | The Applicant has undergone 3 years 6 months in ECIR i. e. half of the punishment. The maximum punishment which can be awarded is 7 years.
The Applicant is in custody for more than 4 years and 7 months. |
3. Respondent No. 1 – the Directorate of Enforcement (‘ED’) by filing affidavit-in-reply of Mr. Sunil Kumar, Assistant Director, Zonal Office-II, Mumbai, Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India dated 22.01.2024 opposed the Bail Application. In the said affidavit, the prosecution case is set out in Paragraph Nos. 7.1 to 7.7 which read as under :
7.2 That, it is alleged in the FIR that RBI team during their periodical visit at head office of M/s. Shivajirao Bhosale Co- operative Bank Ltd. at Pune on 26.04.2019, noticed various discrepancies in records/books of accounts of the bank. Further, the RBI vide letter dated 16.05.2019 had given direction to M/s Torvi Pethe & Co. (Chartered Accountant Firm and Statutory auditor of the Bank) for verification of cash record of all the branches and head office of the Bank. Accordingly, on 25.05.2019 & 27.05.2019, statutory auditor verified all available cash of the branches and head office of the bank with their respective cash books. The Statutory auditor noticed that the entry of cash of Rs. 71.78 Crore which was kept pending at Head Office of the bank during the visit of RBI team was made by the head office of the bank on 04.05.2019 in their cash book. Further, in the head office of M/s. Shivajirao Bhosale Co- operative Bank, the statutory auditor found less cash of Rs. 71.78 Crore than their cash book. The same was communicated to RBI and District Special Auditor Co-operative Dept., Pune by the statutory auditor. Consequently, the Complainant,
The court established that the right to a speedy trial can allow for bail even under stringent provisions of the PMLA when the accused has been in custody for a substantial period.
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 right to a speedy trial under Article 21 allows for bail under Section 436A of the CrPC if the accused has served more than half of the maximum sentence for the offence charged.
The right to a speedy trial is fundamental under Article 21, and prolonged incarceration without trial infringes on this right, warranting bail despite serious allegations.
The right to bail prevails over statutory restrictions when prolonged incarceration without trial violates constitutional rights.
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.
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.
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....
In PMLA cases, constitutional courts grant bail despite Section 45 twin conditions if prolonged incarceration (over two years), trial delay not attributable to accused, and no reasonable trial conclu....
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
