Long Custody Will Enure To Benefit Of Accused For Bail When Delay In Trial Isn't His Fault : Supreme Court Grants Bail In PMLA Case
Observing that continued incarceration will enure to the benefit of the accused who is not responsible for the delay in trial, the Supreme Court granted bail to an accused in a money laundering case related to cattle smuggling across India-Bangladesh border.
"..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," observed the Court granting bail to one Mohd. Enamul Haque under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar considered parity with other co-accused who have been granted bail, the period of incarceration underwent and the unlikelihood of the trial in the alleged cattle smuggling case.
It added that the appellant has sought documents relied on by the ED and he cannot be faulted for delaying the trial by seeking those documents.
On September 21, 2020, a case was registered against the appellant for offences punishable under the PMLA and he was arrested on November 6, 2020. His bail was dismissed in this case by the CBI (Special Court), Anasol, and then by the High Court. On January 24, 2022, the Supreme Court granted him bail in relation to the predicate offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi (for Enamul) apprised the bench that the accused has undergone 4 years and six months in jail for an offence in which the maximum punishment is 7 years. He stated that the prosecution complaint was filed on 16.4.2022 in which there are 85 witnesses and there is no progress in trial.
He said: "What is more important is that in the predicate offence, I was arrested on 6.11.2020. I got bail from the Supreme Court on 24.1.2022. So, I spent 13 months in jail in CBI and so after release from the Supreme Court, next month I am arrested in this case. Effectively, I am in jail for 4 years. In CBI, supplementary complaints are filed, the investigation is pending. No trial. This is a case supposedly of cattle smuggling. In the last 20 days, one major accused called Mondal was granted bail by the Supreme Court."
Rohatgi added that the allegation pertains to alleged cattle smuggling from Kolkata to Bangladesh in conjunction with customs officers. He added that even the officer allegedly accused in this case has got bail.
Referring to the Supreme Court bail order in the CBI case, Rohatgi stated that the accused has obeyed the bail conditions.
Rohagti stated that the reasoning adopted by the Supreme Court in the bail judgments of Delhi's former CM Kejriwal, ministers Sisodia and K. Kavita would apply.
ASG S.V. Raju opposing the bail, said: "You cannot mingle two cases. When court granted bail in CBI case, it looked at the facts of the case. Now, as allegations of this case is concerned, senior officers are bribed. How is the bribe done? Cattle is smuggled to Bangaldesh...The proceeds of crime 12.8 lac crores given to the relatives of the officer...6.1 crores is paid to some shell company operators to give entries so that this money could be laundered. He showed fake exports of garments and agricultural products...Money is sent by Hawala to Dubai.This is the offence."
Raju added that the case is being delayed by the appellant by seeking documents relied on by the ED. To this, Rohatgi responded that in the CBI case, the court has recorded that there is 85,000 pages chargesheet and they took one year to supply.
The Court observed : "We are convinced that the appellant cannot be solely faulted for the non-commencement of the trial as he has not gained anything. Therefore, without commenting on the entitlement of the appellant to receive the copies of the document relied upon the prosecution, we are of the view that taking into consideration not only the period of incarceration but also the trial getting delayed owing to numerous witnesses, he is entitled for bail at this stage.."
Case Details: MODH. ENAMUL HAQUE v.DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, SLP(Crl) No.11129/2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 740