Recently, the Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant charged under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, concerning allegations of illegal cattle transportation and bribery. In its decision, the court acknowledged the prolonged period of incarceration and the absence of trial proceedings, observing that the appellant could not be solely held responsible for the delays, thereby emphasizing the principles of parity and justice.
Brief Facts:
The appellant is charged under sections 7, 11 and 12 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, concerning the utilisation of proceeds of crime in connection with a predicate offence. The allegations against the appellant pertain to the illegal transportation of cattle across the border, accompanied by the bribery of various public officials. It is alleged that the financial gains obtained by the appellant were subsequently employed for the purposes of money laundering.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner contended that co-accused individuals have been granted bail, while the appellant has been unjustly incarcerated. He submitted that, when aggregating the period of detention for both the predicate offence and the current matter, the appellant has been in custody for nearly four years, with the trial yet to commence. Thus, he argued for the grant of bail on these grounds.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The counsel for the respondent argued against the grant of bail. He maintained that the charges arising from the predicate offence are serious and asserted that the duration of the appellant’s incarceration cannot serve as a valid ground for bail in the present case. Furthermore, he posited that the delay in the commencement of the trial is attributable to the appellant’s own requests for additional documentation.
Observation of the Court:
The Court is persuaded to grant bail to the appellant, not only on the basis of parity but also due to the fact that the trial has not yet commenced. The Court observed that there are 85 witnesses listed, and it noted that the trial has yet to initiate, despite the appellant having been incarcerated for over 2 ½ years in the present proceedings. Thus, even if the period of detention associated with the predicate offence is disregarded, the prolonged incarceration, where the appellant bears no sole culpability for the delays in the trial should weight in favour of granting bail. The court held “The trial has not even started. The appellant has been incarcerated for more than 2½ years in the present case. Thus, even if we leave out any period of incarceration undergone in a predicate offence, a continued incarceration where the appellant is not entirely at fault for the completion of trial due to a prolonged delay, would enure to his benefit for the purpose of granting bail”.
The Court expressed that the appellant cannot be faulted for the non-commencement of the trial, given that he has not derived any benefit from the situation. Without making any determinations regarding the appellant’s entitlement to access copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution, the court is of the view that, considering both the duration of incarceration and the delays resulting from the numerous witnesses, the appellant is entitled to bail at this juncture.
The Decision of the Court:
The court decided to set aside the impugned order and the appellant is granted bail, subject to any conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court.
Case Title: MODH. ENAMUL HAQUE vs. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Citation: SLP(CRL.) NO. 11129/2024
Order Date: 23.09.2024
Coram: Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Aravind Kumar
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Mukul Rohatgi (Sr. Adv.), Siddhartha Agarwal (Sr. Adv.), Somesh Chandra Jha, Gaurav Kakar
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Suryaprakash V. Raju (A.S.G.), Mrigank Pathak, Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Vivek Gurnani, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Nidhi Saini, Shweta Desai, Kshitiz Agarwal