An accused in a money laundering case cannot be incarcerated forever by using the stringent conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as a shackle against him, the Delhi High Court stressed Yesterday (Oct 29). Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri made the comment in relation to money laundering cases involving protracted trial.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court emphasized that accused individuals in money laundering cases should not face indefinite incarceration by using the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as a tool for prolonged detention.
This observation, made by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, underscores the court’s commitment to uphold the fundamental rights of accused persons, especially in complex cases involving extensive trials.
Protracted Trials and Section 45 PMLA: Not a “Shackle” for the Accused
Justice Ohri’s remarks stem from cases where extensive evidence and numerous witnesses make for prolonged trials. In this specific case, the court noted that-
“In a situation such as the present case, where there are multiple accused persons, thousands of pages of evidence to assess, scores of witnesses to be examined and the trial is not expected to end anytime in the near future and the delay is not attributable to the accused, keeping the accused in custody by using Section 45 PMLA a tool for incarceration or as a shackle is not permissible.”
This stance aligns with the principle that an accused person’s liberty cannot be restricted without a thorough consideration of all circumstances. Justice Ohri stressed that imposing bail restrictions without considering broader factors conflicts with the individual’s constitutional rights, especially when “the maximum sentence under the PMLA can be of seven years” in most cases.
Such sentences are significantly lower than those for crimes like murder or drug trafficking under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, where punishments can extend to life imprisonment or the death penalty.
Case Context: Bail Granted to Accused in Prolonged Money Laundering Case
This ruling was highlighted as the court granted bail to Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain, accused in a money laundering case involving former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain. Satyendar Jain, an Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader, was recently granted bail by a trial court, prompting his co-accused to seek similar relief, especially given the slow pace of their trial and the resultant impact on their fundamental rights.
While granting bail to the co-accused, Justice Ohri clarified that although Section 45 of the PMLA imposes additional conditions for bail, it “does not create an absolute prohibition on it.”
The court stated-
“When there is no possibility of trial being concluded in a reasonable time and the accused is incarcerated for a long time, depending on the nature of allegations, the conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA would have to give way to the constitutional mandate of Article 21.”
Citing Supreme Court Precedents on PMLA Bail Conditions
The court referenced the Supreme Court’s interpretation of bail conditions under the PMLA in cases involving Manish Sisodia, Prem Prakash, and Vijay Nair.
In these instances, the Supreme Court adopted a liberal approach towards bail, affirming that constitutional courts have the authority to grant bail when there is a potential violation of Part III of the Constitution.
The Delhi High Court reiterated-
“As held in the Catena of judgements discussed hereinabove, Constitutional Courts have the power to grant bails on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution and Section 45 does not act as a hindrance to the same. The sacrosanct right to liberty and fair trial is to be protected even in cases of stringent provisions present in special legislations.”
Ongoing Investigation Delays and Accused Rights
In its order, the court highlighted that Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain have been detained for over 24 months, yet the trial has not commenced. Further delays are inevitable as the CBI’s investigation remains ongoing.
The court noted-
“In addition, it is also noted that since further investigation by the CBI is still pending, there is no possibility of the trial commencing, let alone concluding in the predicate offence in the foreseeable future and consequently, the present case under the PMLA also cannot be finally determined and would inevitably be delayed due to the lack of progress of the trial in the predicate offence.”
The court further took into account that the primary accused, Satyendar Jain, has already been granted bail, strengthening the case for releasing the co-accused under similar conditions.
Legal Representation and Court Decision
Vaibhav Jain was represented by Senior Advocate Siddarth Aggarwal, with advocates Malak Bhatt, Neeha Nagpal, Shreyansh Chopra, and Vishwajeet Singh Bhati. Ankush Jain’s defense included Senior Advocate Rebecca M. John, supported by advocates Dr. Sushil Kumar Gupta, Sunita Gupta, Sushil Kumar Satrawala, Sakshit Bhardwaj, Parvir Singh, and Anushka Baruah.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) was represented by Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, Panel Counsel Vivek Gurnani, and advocates Pranjal Tripathi and Kunal Kochar.
Given the delays in the trial, lack of evidence progression, and the precedence of bail granted to the main accused, the court deemed it appropriate to grant bail to both Ankush Jain and Vaibhav Jain.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on PMLA
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
