Prolonged incarceration before trial infringes on the right to speedy trial, necessitating bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act if trial delays are significant.

JUDGMENT :

N.S. Shekhawat, J.

The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Section 4 83 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with a prayer to grant a regular bail in ECIR/JLZO/36/2020 under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the PML Act’) registered by Enforcement Directorate, Jalandhar.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently argues that the petitioner is a guarantor and suspended director of a company known as SEL Textiles Limited (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Company’). The said Company was a leading manufacturer of textiles products in North India and in the year 2009, the Central Bank of India and Allahabad Bank had formed a consortium to extend the credit facilities to the companies after observing the performance as well as financial returns of the Company. Later on, various financial facilities were availed by the Company from a consortium of 10 banks between the years 2009 to 2014. During this period, the Company also acquired various spinning units, situated at different places to expand the business. He further contends that in the meantime, the Company being severely prejudiced by the actions of the bank and on recommendations of the Central Bank of India, the Company underwent Corporate Debt Restructuring in the year 2013-2014. Even, a Master Restructuring Agreement was signed between the Company and all the ten lenders on 30.09.2024 (including the complainant bank, i.e., the Central Bank of India). The Board of Directors of each bank approved the financial package submitted with the CDR Cell and the Master Restructuring Agreement. The Company duly complied with the terms and conditions stipulated by the CDR Cell and after the approval of the CDR package in September 2014, the funds were required to be released to the Company by the banks. However, the banks defaulted in fulfilling their own commitments and did not disburse the funds. He further contends that even the accounts of the Company were under the extensive monitoring of the bank and there was no question of any kind of fraud by the Company. Later on, the bank accounts of the Company were classified as NPAs in the year 2015 and the complainant bank had also filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code before the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh for initiating insolvency proceedings against the petitioner. All the member banks of the consortium also filed applications before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh against the Company as well as its guarantors, which includes the petitioner.

3. Learned senior counsel further argues that in violation of the Master Restructuring Agreement, the consortium banks exited from the CDR and without providing any opportunity of hearing, reported the accounts of the Company as ‘Fraud’ on different dates. The complainant reported the accounts of the Company as well as guarantors as ‘Fraud’ on 18.04.2018 and the same was followed by other consortium members. On 29.07.2020, the complainant bank lodged a formal complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti Corruption-V, Branch, New Delhi which was later on converted into a FIR bearing No. RC2232020A0004 dated 06.08.2020 registered at Police Station AC-V Delhi, under Sections 403 , 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner joined the investigation and cooperated with CBI on multiple occasions,