Prolonged incarceration without trial can justify bail, even in the presence of multiple pending cases, emphasizing that bail is the rule and detention is the exception.

ORDER :

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

1. This application is filed by accused no. 6 for releasing him on bail in connection with ECIR/MBZO-II/31/2021. The bail application filed by the applicant before the Special Court under The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) was rejected on 9^th November 2023. The applicant was arrested on 16^th June 2022 and has undergone incarceration for around two and a half years. The applicant is not an accused in the predicate offence. The predicate offence has resulted in the acquittal of the accused in the predicate offence, in view of the order passed before the Lok Adalat to compound the offences. However, the order passed by the Lok Adalat is stayed by this Court in a writ petition filed by the State Government. The petition is still pending. Hence, the hearing on the charge in the PMLA case has still not taken place. In view of these facts, the question to be decided by this Court is whether the applicant would be entitled to be released on bail on the ground of long incarceration.

2. The allegation in the predicate offence is regarding accepting huge amounts in cash by the educational institution from the students to secure admission to medical college. A parent of one of the students who was not given admission even after making payments has filed the complaint. The allegation against the applicant is that at the relevant time, from September 2014 to November 2016, the applicant was working as a treasurer of the institution. It is alleged that the board of directors of the institution, i.e. Shri Chhatrapati Shivaji Education Society, had collected cash amounts from more than 350 students and cheated them to the tune of Rs. 68.68 Crores. It is alleged that the cash amount collected from the students, Rs. 2.98 Crores, is deposited in the bank accounts of the applicant and his firm. It is further alleged that the applicant was not able to produce any material to justify his and his firm’s income; hence, the cash amounts deposited in the applicant’s and his firm’s accounts are proceeds of crime.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that in view of sub-section (1) of Section 479 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), the applicant is entitled to be released on bail as he has already undergone detention for a period of more than 1/3^rd of the maximum punishment. This argument regarding release on bail under sub-section (1) of Section 479 of BNSS is opposed by learned counsel for respondent no. 1 on the ground that there are more than one offences pending against the applicant; hence, in view of sub-section (2) of Section 479, the applicant would not be entitled to be released under sub-section (1) of Section 479 of BNSS. To support his submissions, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 has filed an additional affidavit dated 9^th December 2024. The additional affidavit is taken on record. Respondent no. 1 has annexed copies of complaints where the applicant is arraigned as an accused as an authorised signatory on behalf of an educational institution. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that though the applicant is arraigned as an accused as an authorised representative of an institution, the applicant will be responsible in his individual capacity for the alleged offences. He submits that in one of the cases filed under The Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 (‘MPID Act’), the applicant is arraigned as an accused in his individual capacity. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that considering the allegations in the complaints, the applicant would be held guilty in his individual capacity in the said cases. He, therefore, submits that the applicant is not entitled to seek any benefit under sub-section (1) of Section 479 of BNSS.

4. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that in none of the cases the applicant is arraigned as an accused in his individual capacity. According to him, the