Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Is ‘Anathema’ To Constitution, Besides Being In Violation Of Basic Human Rights: Madras High Court
The Madras High Court was hearing Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by two accused persons, seeking bail.
The Madras High Court remarked that a prolonged pre-trial detention is anathema to the Constitution, besides being in violation of the basic human rights.
The Court remarked thus in Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) by two accused persons, seeking bail.
A Single Bench of Justice Sunder Mohan observed, “Prolonged pre-trial detention is anathema to the Constitution, besides being in violation of basic human rights. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above in K.A. Najeeb's case [cited supra] reiterated the position that when the constitutional Courts find that there is an infraction of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the rigours of the provision, which places a restriction on bail, would be diluted. However, as to when this right is violated would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
The Bench added that it would depend upon the period of incarceration, the role played by the accused, the nature of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, and the likely punishment that can be imposed besides the possibility or otherwise of early conclusion of the trial.
Senior Advocates Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam and Sricharan Rangarajan appeared on behalf of the Petitioners while Additional Solicitor General (ASG) A.R.L. Sundaresan appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner No. 1 (Accused No. 1) was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in July 2024 for the alleged offences defined under Section 3 and punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The case was registered and its report was recorded on the basis of predicate offences registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), New Delhi, Customs Departments based in Mumbai and Chennai 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). The Petitioner No. 2 (Accused No. 2) was also arrested in this case and was remanded to judicial custody in August 2024.
It was the case of the Respondent i.e., Enforcement Directorate (ED) that both the accused were involved in the process connected with the proceeds of crime including, concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property; that substantial cash was credited into their accounts; that they availed unsecured loans; that those loans are accommodation entries; that the Income Tax Returns (ITRs) of both the accused is not proportionate to the cash credits made in their accounts; that both the accused were unable to explain the sources of cash; and that the first accused, in a statement under Section 50 of the PMLA recorded, had admitted that he had made the investments in cash, which was acquired from the Narcotics trade in various forms. Resultantly, the accused persons sought bail before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “This Court is of the view that since the case of the petitioners would be squarely covered by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manish Sisodia's case [cited supra] and confirmed by the subsequent judgments, it is not necessary to deal with the other submissions of the learned senior counsels for the petitioners, viz., that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that they are guilty of the offences; and that their arrest and remand are illegal since they are in violation of Section 19 of the PMLA and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court further noted that the trial is not likely to be completed in the near future and even according to the prosecution, the alleged offences had taken place since 2015.
“The petitioners were at large till they were arrested in the year 2024, except for a brief period after their arrest for the predicate offences. Therefore, the fact that further investigation is pending cannot be the reason to detain the petitioners indefinitely”, it added.
The Court also observed that if the Petitioners are found influencing any witness, it is always open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail and as on date, there is no complaint of any tampering or attempt to influence witnesses.
“Considering the various factors, this Court is of the view that further incarceration of the petitioners pending trial would violate their right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and hence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners on certain conditions, which would ensure that they are available to face the trial”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court granted bail to the accused persons on executing a bond of Rs. 5 lakhs each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the XIII Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.
Cause Title- Jaffer Sadiq & Anr. v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement (Case Number: Crl.O.P.Nos.3508 & 3510 of 2025)
