Madras High Court: In a criminal original petitions filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’), to enlarge Jaffer Sadiq and Mohamed Saleem (‘accused persons’) on bail, the Single Judge Bench of Sunder Mohan, J. viewed that the continued incarceration of the accused persons pending trial would amount to a violation of their fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Taking into account the duration of custody, the stage of the trial, and the absence of any allegations of witness tampering or non-cooperation, the Court found it just and appropriate to enlarge the accused persons on bail. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to certain conditions deemed necessary to ensure the accused persons’ presence during the course of trial and to safeguard the interests of justice.
Background
Jaffer Sadiq was arrested on 26-06-2024 and remanded to judicial custody on 15-07-2024 for the alleged offences defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘PMLA’) registered in Enforcement Case Information Report (‘ECIR’) , which was recorded on the basis of predicate offences registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau (‘NCB’), under Sections 9A, 25A, 29, 22(c), 23(c), 24, 30 and 25 read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’). Mohamed Saleem was arrested on 12-08-2024 and remanded to judicial custody on 13-08-2024.
The prosecution’s case against Jaffer Sadiq and Mohamed Saleem, was that they were involved in multiple serious narcotics-related offences and subsequently engaged in activities amounting to money laundering under the PMLA. Jaffer Sadiq was implicated in three separate cases: (a) a 2015 case registered by Chennai Customs concerning the export of 50 kgs of Pseudoephedrine; (b) a 2019 case by the Special Intelligence Investigation Branch, Sahar, Mumbai, for the attempted export of 38.867 kgs of Ketamine through Cube Impex; and (c) a 2024 case by the Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi, for trafficking 50.070 kgs of Pseudoephedrine.
Mohamed Saleem was stated to be involved in the 2019 Mumbai case concerning Ketamine. The prosecution alleges that both accused were actively engaged in laundering the proceeds of these crimes, through concealment, acquisition, and projection of such proceeds as legitimate. Substantial unexplained cash credits were found in their bank accounts, disproportionate to their declared income, and unsecured loans availed by them were identified as accommodation entries.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that the case of the accused persons was squarely covered by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 and further reaffirmed by subsequent judgments. In light of this binding precedent, the Court found it unnecessary to delve into the other contentions advanced by the accused persons including the arguments that there exist no reasonable grounds to believe in their guilt, and that their arrest and remand are vitiated on account of violations under Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court emphasised that the observations in Manish Sisodia (supra) serve as a reminder to both High Courts and Trial Courts of certain foundational principles governing the grant of bail. These include: (a) that bail is the rule and jail is the exception; (b) that bail is not to be withheld as a form of punishment; and (c) that these principles are equally applicable to cases registered under PMLA, particularly in instances of prolonged incarceration coupled with no imminent prospect of trial. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had made these observations in the context of a PMLA case, thereby reinforcing their applicability to the present matter.
The Court noted that all properties alleged to have been acquired through the proceeds of crime have already been attached. It was further observed that the investigation has been completed, and the complaint has been duly filed before the competent Court. Jaffer Sadiq has remained in custody since June 2024 in connection with the present case and has also been in custody since 09-03-2024 in relation to the predicate offence. Mohamed Saleem has been in custody since August 2024. Given the current status, the Court observed that the trial is not likely to conclude in the near future, particularly as summons have not yet been served on certain accused. The prosecution has cited 19 witnesses and relied upon several documents, while the case involves a total of 20 accused persons.
The Court observed that, even as per the prosecution’s own case, the alleged offences date back as far as 2015. The accused persons remained at liberty until their arrests in 2024, barring a brief period of custody in relation to the predicate offences. In such circumstances, the mere pendency of further investigation cannot serve as valid grounds to justify the indefinite detention of the accused persons. The Court further noted that if, at any stage, the accused persons are found to be influencing or attempting to influence witnesses, the prosecution retains the right to seek cancellation of bail. As of the date of the order, there was no allegation or complaint suggesting any such attempt at tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
The Court remarked “Prolonged pre-trial detention is anathema to the Constitution, besides being in violation of basic human rights”.
The Court viewed that the continued incarceration of the accused persons pending trial would amount to a violation of their fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Taking into account the duration of custody, the stage of the trial, and the absence of any allegations of witness tampering or non-cooperation, the Court found it just and appropriate to enlarge the accused persons on bail. Accordingly, bail was granted subject to certain conditions deemed necessary to ensure the accused persons’ presence during the course of trial and to safeguard the interests of justice.
Accordingly, the Court directed that the accused persons be released on bail upon executing a bond for a sum of ₹5,00,000/- each, with two sureties for a like sum each, to the satisfaction of the XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. In addition, the grant of bail is subject to certain conditions to ensure the accused persons’ availability for trial and to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
[Jaffer Sadiq v. Assistant Director, Crl.O.P.Nos.3508 & 3510 of 2025, decided on 21-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioners: Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, Sr. Counsel, Mr.Sri Charan Rangarajan, Sr. Counsel
For Respondent: Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, ASGI, assisted by Mr.N.Ramesh, Special Public Prosecutor
