Bombay High Court Grants Bail Under Section 436-A Cr.P.C.: “Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention of Over 4 Years in PMLA Case Violates Fundamental Right to Speedy Trial; Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception”

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court granted bail to the applicants under Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), highlighting their right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial incarceration, amounting to more than one-half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offenses, was a violation of their fundamental rights. The judgment reiterated that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception,” particularly when trials face unreasonable delays.

Detailed Analysis of the Judgment

Facts

1. The applicants were accused of offenses under Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) read with Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
2. An FIR was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on March 7, 2020, and based on the FIR, the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) initiated an investigation and registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) on the same date.
3. The applicants were arrested by the ED on May 14, 2020. Since then, they had been in custody for 4 years and 9 months.
4. Despite multiple supplementary prosecution complaints filed by the ED, the trial had not commenced, and there was no immediate likelihood of its commencement.
5. The applicants filed for bail under Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. on the grounds of prolonged pre-trial incarceration, but their application was rejected by the Special Court under the PMLA.

Issues Raised

1. Applicability of Section 436-A of Cr.P.C.:
   • Whether the applicants, having undergone pre-trial incarceration exceeding one-half of the maximum imprisonment prescribed, were entitled to bail under Section 436-A.
2. Responsibility for Delayed Trial:
   • Whether the delay in the trial’s commencement was attributable to the applicants or systemic issues in the investigation and prosecution.
3. Interplay Between Section 436-A and Section 45 of PMLA:
   • Whether Section 436-A, which provides for bail in cases of prolonged detention, overrides the stringent bail conditions prescribed under Section 45 of the PMLA.

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Prolonged Detention:
   • The applicants argued that they had been in custody for 4 years and 9 months, which exceeded one-half of the maximum sentence of 7 years for the alleged offenses.
   • The prolonged incarceration violated their constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. No Progress in Trial:
   • The ED had filed multiple supplementary complaints, but the trial had not commenced, and there was no likelihood of it starting soon.
3. Equality Before Law:
   • Other accused persons in the case had already been granted bail.
4. Judicial Precedents:
   • The applicants cited various Supreme Court judgments, including Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India and Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, to assert their right to bail in cases of prolonged detention.
5. No Risk of Tampering or Absconding:
   • The applicants claimed they posed no risk of tampering with evidence or fleeing from justice.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Attribution of Delay:
   • The ED argued that the applicants themselves had caused delays by filing multiple interim applications, thereby obstructing the trial process.
2. Stringent Provisions of PMLA:
   • Section 45 of the PMLA imposes strict conditions for granting bail in money laundering cases, and these conditions should not be overridden by Section 436-A of Cr.P.C.
3. Economic Offenses Require Different Treatment:
   • Economic offenses, involving large-scale financial fraud and loss of public funds, require stringent measures. The applicants’ financial influence could potentially disrupt the trial or tamper with evidence.
4. Judicial Discretion:
   • Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. does not guarantee an absolute right to bail and is subject to judicial discretion.

Analysis of the Law

1. Section 436-A of Cr.P.C.:
   • Introduced in 2006, Section 436-A aims to prevent indefinite pre-trial detention by mandating the release of undertrial prisoners who have served one-half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offense. The court noted that this provision was enacted to uphold the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21.
2. Interplay with Section 45 of PMLA:
   • The court relied on Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, which clarified that Section 436-A, being a later and beneficial provision, prevails over the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA.
3. Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial:
   • The court emphasized that prolonged detention without trial violates Article 21. It referred to Hussainara Khatoon and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to highlight that fairness, reasonableness, and justice must guide all procedures affecting personal liberty.

Precedent Analysis

1. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India:
   • Recognized Section 436-A as applicable to PMLA cases, reaffirming the right to bail in cases of prolonged detention.
2. Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI:
   • Reiterated that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception, particularly for undertrial prisoners.
3. Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb:
   • Highlighted that prolonged incarceration without the likelihood of trial completion warrants bail.
4. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar:
   • Established the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The applicants had undergone nearly five years of incarceration, exceeding one-half of the maximum sentence prescribed for their alleged offenses.
2. The trial had not commenced due to systemic delays, and the prosecution failed to demonstrate any likelihood of its commencement in the near future.
3. Prolonged detention without trial violated the applicants’ fundamental right to personal liberty and a speedy trial under Article 21.
4. The court rejected the ED’s argument that the applicants’ actions caused delays, emphasizing that systemic issues were the primary cause of the delay.
5. Economic offenses, though serious, do not justify indefinite pre-trial detention, especially when trial delays are not attributable to the accused.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court granted bail to the applicants, directing their release subject to conditions ensuring their presence during trial proceedings. The court underscored the principle that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception,” particularly in cases of prolonged pre-trial detention.

Implications

1. Strengthening Constitutional Protections:
   • The judgment reinforces the constitutional mandate for a speedy trial and upholds personal liberty as a fundamental right.
2. Limitation on Pre-Trial Detention:
   • Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. provides a critical safeguard against indefinite pre-trial incarceration, even in cases involving stringent laws like PMLA.
3. Judicial Balance:
   • The judgment balances the need for stringent action against economic offenses with the accused’s fundamental rights, setting a precedent for similar cases.

Also Read – Supreme Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case to ₹24,53,280: Rules Income Tax Returns as Authoritative Evidence, Sets Aside Lower Courts’ Arbitrary Income Assessment