SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Ori) 574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
G.SATAPATHY, J.
Jagabandhu Chand – Petitioner
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement - Opposite Party
BLAPL No.2635 of 2023
Decided On : 10-10-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. J.Pal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party :Mr. G.Agarwal, Advocate (E.D.)

Personal liberty must be preserved; serious medical conditions warranting special care can justify bail under the PMLA's proviso to Section 45(1).

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3 and 4 - Bail application - Petitioner applied for bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with a case of money laundering - Court discussed the nature of sickness of the petitioner and the applicability of Section 45(1) PMLA - The exemption allows bail on humanitarian grounds when the accused is sick or infirm, enabling relaxation of twin requirements of Section 45(1) - Conditions for bail imposed include non-commission of offense and surrendering of passport. (Paras 6, 10, 14)

(B) Right to Liberty - The court reiterated the significance of personal liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, urging that deprivation of liberty without lawful grounds amounts to pre-trial punishment - The discretion to grant bail must not be arbitrary, underscoring the balance between individual rights and the need for justice. (Paras 4, 5)

Facts of the case:
The bail application by the petitioner arose from PMLA Case No.10 of 2022, implicating him in extortion and money laundering offenses. He was accused of generating illegal income through threats and blackmail against wealthy individuals. The case has undergone investigations by the ED, leading to the petitioner's detention since December 2022.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petitioner’s serious medical condition warranted bail under the proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA, which permits discretion based on health grounds.

Issues: The issues included whether the conditions for bail under Section 45(1) of PMLA could be relaxed in light of the petitioner’s medical condition and the applicant’s right to personal liberty.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the personal liberty is paramount and stress was laid on preserving life. The court stressed that serious health conditions that cannot be treated within the prison system justify bail. The petitioner was deemed 'sick' within the context of the law, warranting his release.

Result: Bail application allowed; petitioner was granted bail with specified conditions.

Table of Content
1. overview of bail application and allegations. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding conditions of bail and health issues. (Para 3 , 11)
3. court's analysis of bail provisions and applicant's situation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. definition and implications of 'sick' for bail eligibility. (Para 8 , 10)
5. final order granting bail with conditions. (Para 15)

JUDGMENT :

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This is a bail application U/S.439 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Complainant Case (PMLA) Case No.10 of 2022 for commission of offence Under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (In short “PMLA”) which is punishable Under Section 4 PMLA pending in the file of learned District and Sessions Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar.

2. An overview of the facts involved in this case are on 02.10.2022, one FIR was registered against the Petitioner and others vide Khandagiri PS Case No. 496 of 2022 for commission of offences punishable Under Sections 341 / 328 / 324 / 354-C/ 370 /386 /387/ 388/389/419/420/465/506/120-B of Indian Penal Code (in short IPC ), 1860 and Under Section 66 -E/67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000(In short the “IT Act”), but before registration of this case, another case was also registered against the co-accused person for similar offences. In the FIR against the Petitioner and others, the Petitioner and other co-accused person had extorted crores of Rupees from different rich people by blackmailing them to get their video footage containing objectionable and inappropriate photographs viral. The aforesaid case was investigated into by the local police, but in the course of investigation, the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar claiming the offences alleged against the Petitioner and others to be scheduled offences as defined Under Section 2 (1y) of the PMLA instituted a complaint against the Petitioner and others before the special Court under PMLA, Bhubaneswar for commission of offence U/S. 3 of PMLA which is punishable U/S. 4 of PMLA. It is stated in the complaint that soon after registration of the aforesaid police case, PMLA Case No.10 of 2022 was recorded against the Petitioner and others for commission of aforesaid offence under PMLA and the matter was investigated into by ED. It is also alleged in the complaint that the Petitioner and others had generated illegal income of Crores of Rupees through extortion by way of honey trapping rich and influential people and making their nude videos and threatening as well as blackmailing them for lodging false police cases and getting their nude videos viral in social media and, thereby, the income of the Petitioner and others are proceeds of crime as defined Under (1)(u) of the PMLA. This is how the complaint against the Petitioner and others came to be instituted for commission of offences Under Sections 3 /4 of PMLA.

3. Heard, Mr.J.Pal, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. G.Agrawal, learned counsel for the ED extensively. In support of their individual contentions, learned counsels for both the parties have filed short written notes of submission by relying upon the number of decisions, which would be discussed if found relevant in subsequent paragraph. While arguing on merit, learned counsel for the Petitioner has also urged the ground of sickness of the Petitioner to grant him bail by extending the benefit of proviso appended to the mandatory provision of Section 45 (1) of the PMLA.

4. Undeniably, the provisions as to bail are founded on the philosophy of protecting the most precious individual liberty of a person which is guaranteed under Article 21 of our sacred Constitution, but grant or refusal of bail to a person accused of offence is the discretion of the Court, however, such discretion should not be arbitrary or whimsical. Article 21 of the Constitution of India always reminds that the personal liberty is paramount and sacrosanct and no person shall be deprived of his personal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top