IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR
Anil Shivajirao Bhosale - Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement - Respondent
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.4843 OF 2024
Decided On : 24-01-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3, 4, and 45 - Bail application - Applicant, having undergone more than half of the maximum punishment of 7 years, sought bail after 4 years and 11 months in custody - The court considered the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and the provisions of Section 436A of the CrPC, which allows for bail after half of the maximum sentence is served. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 21, 32)
(B) Right to speedy trial - The court emphasized that prolonged incarceration without trial violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21, and that statutory restrictions should not impede this right. (Paras 21, 22, 26)
(C) Conditions for bail - The court imposed stringent conditions on the applicant, including reporting to the Enforcement Directorate and restrictions on entering Pune District. (Paras 35, 36)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was arrested in connection with a money laundering case involving substantial financial fraud as the chairman of a cooperative bank. The applicant argued for bail based on long incarceration and completion of more than half of the maximum sentence.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the applicant had completed a significant portion of the sentence and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, thus granting bail under Section 436A of the CrPC.
Issues: The main issues were the applicant's eligibility for bail under the PMLA and the implications of prolonged detention without trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to a speedy trial is paramount and that statutory provisions should not infringe upon this right, allowing for bail despite the serious nature of the charges.
Result: Bail granted with conditions.
JUDGMENT :
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
1. Heard Mr. Mundargi, learned Counsel along with Ms. Keral Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr.Venegavkar, learned P.P. appearing for the Respondent-ED.
2. This regular Bail Application is preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) r/w. Section 45 and Section 65 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) in ECIR/MBZO-II/20/2020 lodged by Respondent-ED. The relevant details are as follows:
| 1. | ECIR No. | ECIR/MBZO-II/ 20/2020 |
| C.R./F.I.R. Number (Scheduled Offence) | C. R. No. 0026/2020 | |
| 2. | Date of Registration of ECIR | 16.03.2021 |
| Date of Registration of C.R./F.I.R. (Scheduled Offence) | 08.01.2020 | |
| 3. | Prosecuting Agency | |
| ECIR | Enforcement Directorate | |
| Scheduled Offences | Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Pune | |
| 4. | Sections invoked (ECIR) | Section 3 r/w. 70 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 |
| Scheduled offences | Sections 420 r/w. 34, 406, 408, 409, 465, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | |
| 5. | Date of arrest of the Applicant in Scheduled Offence | 25.02.2020 |
| Date of arrest in ECIR | 05.03.2021 | |
| 6. | Date of filing of Charge-sheet in Scheduled Offence | Charge-sheet bearing No. 32/2020 dated 18th May 2020 |
| ECIR Complaint | April 2021 | |
| 7. | Status of Bail Application in scheduled offence | Scheduled Offence – Bail granted on 19th August 2024 by this Court in B. A. No. 653 of 2023 |
| 8. | Main grounds for seeking bail | The Applicant has undergone 3 years 10 months in ECIR i. e. more than half of punishment. The maximum punishment which can be awarded is 7 years. |
| The Applicant is in custody for more than 4 years and 11 months. |
3. Respondent – the Directorate of Enforcement (“ED”) by filing affidavit-in-reply of Mr. Venkata Naren Garapaty, Assistant Director, Zonal Office-II, Mumbai, Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India dated 03.01.2025 opposed the Bail Application. In the said affidavit, the prosecution case is set out in Paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 11 which read as under:
“6. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
6.1. That, On January 8, 2020, the Shivajinagar Police Station, Pune registered FIR No. 0026/2020 based on a complaint filed by Mr. Yogesh Rajgopa Lakde, Chartered Accountant (Partner ot Mis Torvi Pethe & Co.) against Mr. Anil Shivaji Rao Bhosale, Mr. Suryaji Pandurang Jadhav, Mr. Tanaji Dattu Padwal, Mr. Shailesh Sampatrao Bhosale, Mr. Vishnu Tukaram Jagtap, Mr. Hanuman Babanrao Sorte, and others, invoking 420, 34, 406, 408, 409, 468, and 471 of the IPC, 1860.
6.2. That as the case was further transferred to Economic Offence Wing, the Economic Offence Wing. Pune filed charge-sheet No. 32/2020 on 18.05.2020, before the Hon'ble Additional Sessions Judge, Special M.P.I.D Court, Pune against Mr Anil Shivajirao Bhosale, Mr Suryaji Pandurang Jadhav, Mr Tanaji Dattu Padwal, Mr Shailesh S. Bhosale and others for constituting the offences punishable under Sections 34, 406, 408, 409, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, 1860 read with Section 3, 4 & 5 of MPID Act Further during course of investigation, Economic Offence Wing filed Supplementary Chargesheet and the details of the various charge sheets and the accused individuals are annexed herewith as "EXHIBIT В".
6.3. That, based on the FIR no. 0026/2020 and the chargesheets mentioned in the Table above filed by the EOW, this Enforcement Directorate recorded an Enforcement case Information Report (ECIR) bearing No. ECIR/MBZO-II/03/2020 dated 16.03.2020 against Shri Anil Shivajirao Bhosale, the Chairman of Shivajirao Bhosale Sahakari Bank, Shri Suryaji Pandurang Jadhav, one of the directors of the bank, Shri Tanaji Dattu Padwal, Shailesh Sampatrao Bhosale and 12 others in the case of Shivajirao Bhosale Sahakari Bank to investigate the offence of Money Laundering under the prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to the tune of Rs. 494 crores (approx.)
6.4. That, the said accused persons were arrested with respect to the case under PMLA and released on bail by the Hon'ble High court on these respective dates:
| Name of Accused | Date Of Ar | |
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 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 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 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.
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 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....
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.