BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.
Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar – Applicant
versus
Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Bail Application No.2104 of 2021 with Interim Application No.4753 of 2023 in Criminal Bail Application No.2104 of 2021
Decided on 10.1.2024
Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 4 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 436-A – Constitution of India – Article 21 – Bail – Delayed trial – Right of an undertrial prisoner to have speedy trial is one of facets of Article 21 of Constitution of India being a fundamental right – In view of Section 436A of Code of Criminal Procedure, right to be released on bail would accrue to applicant on the day when half of maximum period of imprisonment, specified under Section 4 of PML Act would be over – However, right to be enlarged on bail after undergoing detention for a period exceeding one half of minimum period of imprisonment is not an absolute right – Court may still deny relief on the grounds such as delay of trial at instance of accused himself – Applicant is not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of delayed trial at this stage. (Paras 6, 7 and 8)
Result:
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr. Mirajkar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Venegavkar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1. E.D.
2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the applicant has prayed for release of the applicant on bail mainly on the premise that he has undergone 2 years and 340 days in the custody as an under trial prisoner in light of the fact that the maximum sentence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short “PML Act”) is 3 years. The charge has not yet been framed and that the prospects of the trial commencing in time in the near future is bleak. As such, dehors merits, Counsel prays for release of the applicant only on the ground of inordinate delay in commencing the trial.
3. A few facts germane for disposal of this application are as follows.
4. The applicant came to be arrested by the Enforcement of Directorate on 27.11.2020. Before his arrest, on 07.03.2020 CBI filed an FIR (RC No.219 of 2020) at New Delhi against Cox & Kind Group of Companies (for short “CKL”) and others alleging a bank fraud. CKL was in insolvency since 2019. Forensic audit revealed serious financial misconduct. The applicant filed a complaint on 19.08.2020 for such financial misconduct against the CFO and other senior executives of CKL at Nagpada Police Station, Mumbai, which were registered as C.R. No.3/2020 and 4/2020 after orders under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Another case was opened by the Enforcement Directorate at Mumbai being No. 38 of 2020. Subsequently, CFO and internal auditor of CKL were arrested in the month of September / October 2020. Before his arrest, the applicant attended the office of the Enforcement Directorate on several occasions for the purpose of investigation. The Enforcement Directorate filed a complaint for the offence under Section 4 of the PML Act in Special Court, Mumbai on 02.12.2020, which is registered as Special Case No.1090 of 2020. An application moved for bail by the applicant came to be rejected on 29.04.2021 after considering the merits of the case.
5. The applicant has moved the present application on 03.06.2021. The Special Court granted temporary bail to enable the applicant to undergo medical treatment at his own cost at Bombay Hospital, subject to his custody in other cases registered with the Economic Offence Wing, Mumbai. The applicant moved 8 applications for bail on medical ground being Bail Application Nos. 2723 of 2023, 2730 of 2023, 2729 of 2023, 2728 of 2023, 2727 of 2023, 2733 of 2023, 2725 of 2023 and 2724 of 2023. This Court had also permitted the applicant to take medical treatment by an order dated 16.03.2023. However, subsequently by an order dated 02.11.2023, this Court rejected the prayer of the applicant seeking continuation of the medical bail on the ground of his serious health issues as well as unfavourable medical history, which finds a mention in the certificates issued by one Dr. Pravin Amin dated 24.08.2023.
6. No doubt, right of an under trial prisoner to have a speedy trial is one of the facets of Article 21 of the Constitution of India being a fundamental right. Mr. Venegavkar, learned Special Public Prosecutor has contended that in view of Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the right to be released on bail would be accrued to the applicant on the day when half of the maximum period of imprisonment, specified under Section 4 of the PML Act would be over. Mr. Venegavkar has, therefore, placed useful reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2022 SCC Online SC 929. It would be apposite to extract paragraph 416, 417 and 418 of the judgment, which read thus:—
“416. The Union of India also recognized the right to speedy trial and access to justice as fundamental right in their written submissions and, thus, submitted that in a limited situation right of bail can be granted in case of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Fur
Bail – Right to be enlarged on bail after undergoing detention for a period exceeding one half of minimum period of imprisonment is not an absolute right.
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 under Article 21 of the Constitution prevails, allowing bail under Section 436A of the CrPC despite statutory restrictions in the PMLA.
Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides for bail in cases where the trial has not commenced, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and access to justice.
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 half of the maximum sentence without trial, warranting bail under Section 436-A ....
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....
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 ....
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 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.
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.