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.

ORDER :

(C.S. DIAS, J.)

The application is filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , by the first accused in ECIRNo.KZSZO/12/2021, which is registered by the Enforcement Directorate, Kozhikode, against ten accused persons for allegedly committing the offences under Section 3 read with Section 17 and punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA Act’, in short). The petitioner was arrested on27.09.2023.

2.The prosecution case, in brief, is that, the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau has registered FIR No.VC-02/2019-WYD against K.K.Abraham, the erstwhile President of the Pulpally Service Co- operative Bank (‘Bank’, in short), who had conspired with Remadevi.K.T (the then Secretary of the Bank) Sri.P.U.Thomas (the then Loan Section in charge of the Bank) and other Governing Body members of the Bank for allegedly committing the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘P.C Act’, in short). The Investigating Officer filed charge sheets in four parts against 10 accused persons for allegedly committing the offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, 201 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 13 (1) (d) r/w. 13 (2) of the P.C Act. As the offence under the P.C Act is a scheduled offence under the PMLA Act, and it was suspected that proceeds of the crime arising out of the scheduled offence was laundered by the accused persons, an investigation under the provisions of the PMLA Act was initiated by recording the ECIR. During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the Governing Body members and the Officials of the Bank had sanctioned enhanced loans without the consent and knowledge of the loan applicants by overvaluing the properties offered as collateral security. The loans have not been repaid to the Bank and thereby, causing the Bank a loss of Rs.5.62/- crore. On scrutinising the 1st accused’s bank account No.001001014444, it was revealed that cash deposits of approximately Rs.1.76/- crore were made to his bank account, and the amounts were withdrawn in cash on the same day of deposit. The deposits are proceeds of the crime and were utilised by the 1 st accused.

3. The main contentions in the bail application are that the grounds of arrest filed by the respondent are vague, there are no materials to implicate the petitioner in the crime, the petitioner is neither a director nor an office bearer of the Bank, and the allegation against the petitioner is false.

4. The respondent has filed a bail objection report through its Standing Counsel, reiterating the prosecution case and contending that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may influence the other accused and witnesses, who are yet to be investigated and the petitioner may tamper with the evidence, which may jeopardise the investigation. The materials collected undoubtedly prove that the petitioner is involved in the crime. Therefore, the application may be dismissed.

5. Heard; Sri. S. Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Jaishankar V. Nair, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions in the bail application. He argued that the petitioner was initially arrested in the Crime No.774/2022 of the Pulpalli Police Station on 27.06.2023 and he was enlarged on bail on 19.07.2023. After that, the petitioner was arrested in the present crime on 27.09.2023. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for over a year now. Out of the 10 accused in the crime, except for the petitioner, all the other accused have been enlarged on bail. The petitioner is entitled to parity with the other accused. Although the complaint was filed on 24.11.2023, the trial in the crime has not yet commenced and there is no likelihood of the trial in the case commencing in the near future. The learned Counsel also contended that the petitioner is only an agriculturist, who was doing ginger cultivation. Certain persons