Delhi High Court: The present bail applications were filed by Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain seeking regular bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) being accused of money laundering based on a scheduled offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the ground that prolonged incarceration violates their constitutional right to a speedy trial. Manoj Kumar Ohri, J., directed that both the applicants be released on regular bail subject to them furnishing respective personal bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety of the like amount.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed an FIR in 2017 against several accused persons, including the present applicants, under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. These charges pertained to alleged disproportionate assets and corruption. The CBI’s investigation culminated in a chargesheet; however, the present Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under the PMLA was registered only after this FIR, leading to the applicants’ arrest in June 2022. The trial, however, remains stalled at the stage of framing charges, with the Presiding Officer’s recent retirement further delaying proceedings. Additionally, the prosecution has named ten accused and listed 108 witnesses, with over 5,000 pages of documentary evidence to be examined, indicating a complex trial that may extend for years.
Counsel for applicants argued that their prolonged incarceration violates the principle of a speedy trial. They underscored the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21, advocating for bail in situations where trial delays are prolonged and unlikely to conclude soon. The applicants contended that stringent bail provisions in special legislation like PMLA should not override constitutional protections when the delay is not attributable to them, especially when the primary offense has yet to conclude trial.
The prosecution countered that the PMLA’s strictures aim to curb economic offenses and that the applicants should not be released, as the charges are grave. They also raised concerns regarding Section 436-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) regarding detention durations and argued that it should not apply to the applicants’ case due to the case’s severity.
The Court recognized the critical balance between statutory restrictions under Section 45 of the PMLA and the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The Court further reiterated that constitutional courts could override statutory restrictions when prolonged detention infringes on fundamental rights.
The Court found that the delay in the present case was largely due to external factors, including the complexity of the case, the volume of evidence, and administrative delays in appointing a new Presiding Officer. Moreover, the applicants had cooperated with the investigation, complied with interim bail terms, and were not considered a flight risk. The Court emphasized that while the PMLA aims to address serious financial crimes, its application should not result in prolonged and indefinite detention without a timely trial.
The Court concluded that under the principles set forth in recent judgments, PMLA’s rigorous bail requirements should not be used as a blanket denial of liberty, particularly where delays in trial proceedings are beyond the control of the accused. The Court underscored that the accused’s right to a fair and speedy trial remains a constitutional imperative and granted bail, emphasizing the sacrosanct nature of Article 21 protections, which supersede even stringent special laws.
Thus, the Court granted bail to the applicants, citing the absence of any substantial progress in the trial despite their two-year incarceration.
[Vaibhav Jain v. ED, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7478, decided on 29-10-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Siddarth Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Malak Bhatt, Ms. Neeha Nagpal, Mr. Shreyansh Chopra and Mr. Vishwajeet Singh Bhati, Advocates for applicants
Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for ED with Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Panel Counsel, Mr. Pranjal Tripathi & Mr. Kunal Kochar, Advocates for respondent
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 HERE
