Site icon Raw Law

Bombay High Court Grants Bail Under Section 436-A CrPC: “Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Without Trial Violates Article 21, Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception”

Rawlaw
Bombay High Court Grants Bail Under Section 436-A CrPC: "Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Without Trial Violates Article 21, Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception"

Bombay High Court Grants Bail Under Section 436-A CrPC: "Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Without Trial Violates Article 21, Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception"

Share this article

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court granted bail to the applicants under Section 436-A of the CrPC, which provides for release of undertrial prisoners who have served half of the maximum imprisonment term prescribed for the alleged offenses. The court held that prolonged pre-trial detention without trial commencement violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The court emphasized that “Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception,” especially in cases where delay is attributable to the investigating agency.

The court also factored in that the applicants had already undergone almost 4 years and 9 months of incarceration, which is more than half of the maximum punishment of 7 years prescribed for the offenses alleged against them.

Facts

  1. Arrest and Charges:
    • The applicants were arrested on May 14, 2020, for alleged offenses under:
    • The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleged that the applicants were involved in a financial crime concerning money laundering.
  2. Investigation Status:
    • The Directorate of Enforcement filed multiple supplementary prosecution complaints but has not concluded its investigation.
    • The ED admitted that certain parts of the investigation remain pending, and the PMLA Court noted that the trial has not commenced and is unlikely to start in the foreseeable future.
  3. Bail Applications:
    • The applicants filed for bail under Section 436-A of the CrPC, which allows release when the undertrial has served more than half of the maximum sentence.

Issues

The court addressed two major legal questions:

  1. Whether the applicants’ prolonged detention without trial commencement violated their constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21.
  2. Whether the applicants were eligible for bail under Section 436-A of the CrPC, given the delays in the trial caused by the investigating agency.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  1. Prolonged Incarceration:
    • The applicants argued that they had been incarcerated for over 4 years and 9 months, exceeding half of the 7-year maximum sentence prescribed for the offenses.
  2. Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial:
    • The applicants cited Article 21, emphasizing that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and that prolonged pre-trial detention violated this right.
  3. Judicial Precedents:
    • The applicants relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, which emphasize:
      • Bail is the rule.
      • Pre-trial incarceration is not a substitute for punishment.
    • The petitioners argued that Section 436-A overrides the stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA.
  4. Non-Commencement of Trial:
    • The applicants highlighted that the investigation was incomplete, and the PMLA Court itself had noted that the trial was unlikely to start soon.

Respondent’s Arguments

  1. Delay Attributed to Applicants:
    • The ED argued that part of the delay in trial was caused by the applicants, who had filed multiple interim applications in various courts, stalling the proceedings.
  2. Seriousness of Economic Offenses:
    • The ED contended that economic offenses should be treated differently in bail matters because they involve “deep-rooted conspiracies” and “significant loss to public funds.”
    • Citing the Supreme Court decisions in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI and State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, the ED argued that economic crimes should be viewed as grave offenses.
  3. No Absolute Right to Bail:
    • The ED asserted that Section 436-A CrPC does not provide an absolute right to bail, and courts should consider public interest, the gravity of the offense, and other relevant factors.

Analysis of the Law

The court analyzed the interaction between Section 436-A of the CrPC and the stringent bail provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA:

  1. Applicability of Section 436-A CrPC:
    • Section 436-A provides that an undertrial prisoner shall be released on bail if they have served half of the maximum sentence, unless the court records reasons for continued detention.
    • The court noted that Section 436-A applies even to special statutes like the PMLA, as it came into effect after the PMLA’s enactment.
  2. Balancing Liberty and Public Interest:
    • While acknowledging the seriousness of economic offenses, the court stressed that bail jurisprudence cannot be disregarded, especially when the delay in trial is not attributable to the accused.
  3. Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial:
    • Citing judgments like Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, the court reaffirmed that speedy trial is a fundamental right and that prolonged incarceration violates the principles of fairness and justice.

Precedent Analysis

The court referred to the following key precedents:

  1. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar: Recognized speedy trial as an integral part of Article 21.
  2. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI: Emphasized that detention before conviction cannot serve as punishment.
  3. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India: Held that Section 436-A CrPC prevails over stringent provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA.

Court’s Reasoning

  1. Prolonged Detention Without Trial:
    • The court observed that the applicants’ detention for nearly five years without trial commencement was unjustified and violated their right to speedy trial.
  2. Responsibility of Investigating Agency:
    • The court noted that the delay in trial was attributable to the ED’s pending investigations and supplementary complaints, and not to the applicants.
  3. Balancing Principles:
    • The court balanced the seriousness of the offense with the applicants’ right to liberty and the presumption of innocence, which remains until conviction.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court granted bail under Section 436-A CrPC, subject to conditions, noting that:

Implications

This judgment reinforces the principle that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception, even in cases involving serious economic offenses. It highlights the importance of speedy trial as a constitutional mandate and warns against prolonged pre-trial detention as a violation of personal liberty. The decision underscores that statutory provisions like Section 436-A CrPC must be applied to uphold the fundamental rights of undertrial prisoners.

BB3Download

Also Read – Bombay High Court Upholds Dismissal of MSRTC Conductor: Rules on Domestic Enquiry, Confirms Sufficiency of Evidence for Ticketless Passenger and Excess Cash, and Validates Role of Disciplinary Authority Under Service Rules

Exit mobile version