Will Ask PMLA Accused Seeking Bail On Ground Of Delay In Trial To File Undertaking Against Seeking Adjournments: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 27) expressed that it will require persons accused of money laundering to file undertaking that they will not seek adjournments and delay trial before granting bail on the ground that trial is delayed.

“So this is the course we want to adopt now if we are granting bail on the ground that the matter is not progressing. Interests will be balanced. Unless we find that something is really there on merits. That is a different case, we will grant bail on merits”, Justice Abhay Oka said.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih directed Zeeshan Haider, an accused in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case who has sought bail on ground of delay, to file an undertaking in order for the court to consider his prayer.

“Whenever we pass the order of granting bail on the ground that trial will take time, we will take an undertaking from them. You file an undertaking, get it executed in jail wherever he is that 1) The day case is fixed or framing of charge, you will not seek adjustment, 2) After charge is framed, no further proceeding would be filed, and 3) you will cooperate with the trial”, Justice Oka said.

The Court made it clear that it will consider the ground of delay in trial only if the accused agreed to these conditions.

The case also involves Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan as the main accused. Amanatullah Khan, as chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board, allegedly engaged in illegal recruitment, generating proceeds of crime. The ED claims these funds were used to purchase properties through associates. Amanatullah Khan was recently granted bail.

During the hearing, the Counsel for Haider highlighted that his client had been in custody for over a year and the trial had not progressed.

Justice Oka inquired about the progress of the case, including the number of witnesses and the status of the charges. The counsel stated that 29 witnesses have been cited by the ED but charges had not yet been framed. He said that the proceedings were delayed, and a stay had been granted on the trial by the Delhi High Court at the instance of ED, but it had later withdrawn its application.

The counsel explained that scrutiny of documents provided by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) was still underway. The ED furnished a list of unrelied on documents only recently, and the case is scheduled for further proceedings on December 3, 2024.

Justice Oka sought an undertaking to ensure the trial progresses without undue delays. The Court listed the matter next Tuesday at 2 PM to enable the petitioner to file an undertaking.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju for the ED raised concerns regarding a trial court order from earlier in the day. The Rouse Avenue Court had criticized the ED for causing delays and directed the agency not to oppose bail pleas where trial delays were attributable to its actions. The trial court granted bail to co-accused Kausar Imam Siddiqui, citing prolonged incarceration and lack of trial progress.

Raju informed the bench that the trial judge had made remarks about “teaching a lesson to the ED,” in open court. He indicated the ED's intention to challenge the order.

Justice Oka remarked that the trial court's order was “very drastic”.

Recently, the Supreme Court has granted bail to various accused under PMLA and other special statutes with stringent bail provisions such as Senthil Balaji, Manish Sisodia etc. on the ground of delay in trial. The Trial Court relied on one such case of UAPA accused Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh while granting bail to petitioner's co-accused Kausar Imam Siddiqui.

While granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji, the Court held that higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial. The Court held that requirement of expeditious trial must be read into special statutes having stringent bail provisions.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 9374/2024

Case Title – Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement