No Possibility Of Trial Concluding In Near Future: Delhi HC Grants Bail To PMLA Accused In West Bengal Illegal Coal Mining Case
The Delhi High Court granted bail to an accused in illegal coal mining case in the State of West Bengal, saying that there is no possibility of the trial concluding in near future.
The Court was deciding a bail application filed by the accused under Sections 45 and 46 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) read with Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
A Single Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh said, “… it is evident that despite the stringent requirements under Section 45 of PMLA for grant of bail, the twin conditions therein do not create an absolute restraint or embargo or an insurmountable barrier in the way of the Court to grant bail on grounds of delay in completion of trial and long incarceration, which in this case is for a period of 27 months and 03 days. Maintaining a delicate balance between the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA and the need to combat economic offences and seeing with the prism of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in my view, the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail keeping in view the incarceration of nearly 28 months and there being no possibility of the trial concluding in the near future.”
Senior Advocate N. Hariharan appeared for the petitioner/accused while Advocate Anupam S. Sharma appeared for the respondent/Enforcement Directorate.
Brief Facts -
An FIR was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 409 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). As per the FIR, several persons were involved in activities related to illegal excavation and theft of coal from leasehold area of Eastern Coalfield Limited (ECL). It was alleged that Anup Majee led the syndicate of illegal coal miners in active connivance with officials of ECL, CISF, Indian Railways, and other departments, who facilitated in misappropriation of coal thereby committing criminal breach of trust of Government property entrusted to them.
During investigation, large number of vehicles and equipments used in illegal coal mining and its transportation were seized and several instances of installing illegal weigh bridges in concrete form were detected. Hence, CBI filed a charge sheet against Anup Majee and 40 other accused in 2022 in the Court of Special Judge (CBI), Asansol, West Bengal and the Court took cognizance of the offences. The petitioner was one of the accused in the CBI case. Investigation revealed that Anup Majee and his associates were the organizers of the illegal coal mining at the ECL area and he was also controlling the business of storage, transportation and sale of coal as well as collection of ‘proceeds of crime’ (POC) with the assistance of his associates including the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was sent to judicial custody and resultantly, he sought bail.
The High Court in view of the above facts observed, “ED has strenuously contended that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is guilty of the offence and does not cross the threshold of the twin conditions. Applicant is involved in illegal mining and smuggling of coal and laundering of tainted money. It is alleged that POC of scheduled offence were concealed by acquisition and use and were laundered under Section 3 of PMLA. An amount of Rs.89.04 crores is attributed as POC to the applicant with a nexus and live link to the predicate offence.”
The Court noted that the issues flagged by the respective parties are complex which would require further evidence and are best left to the Trial Court. Hence, it decided to grant bail on the touchstone of Article 21 of the Constitution due to long incarceration of the petitioner and the possibility of the trial not concluding in the near future.
“On the aspect of the applicant being a flight risk albeit there was no serious opposition, yet this apprehension of the prosecution can be allayed by imposing stringent bail conditions. It is to be noted that on being granted bail by the Special Court in the predicate offence, applicant complied with all the bail conditions and joined the investigation as and when called for. It is also a matter of record that the investigation in the present matter qua the applicant is complete”, it further noted.
The Court added that the case of the ED is primarily based on documentary evidence and the relevant records/documents have been seized and are in custody of investigating agencies and thus cannot be tampered and that the ED has not argued that there is any possibility of intimidating the witnesses.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application and granted bail to the accused on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 5 lakhs with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
Cause Title- Gurupada Maji v. Enforcement Directorate (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6564)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, Advocates Sumer Singh Boparai, Sidhant Saraswat, Siddharth S. Yadav, Varun Bhati, Srishti Khanna, Mueed Shah, Sneha Bakshiram, and Rahul Yadav.
Respondent: Advocates Anupam S. Sharma, Prakarsh Airan, Harpreet Kalsi, Abhishek Batra, Ripudaman Sharma, Vashisht Rao, and Syamantak Modgill.
