They Have Been In Custody Since More Than 24 Months: Delhi HC Grants Bail To Vaibhav Jain & Ankush Jain In PMLA Case
The Delhi High Court granted bail to Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain after 2 years of custody in a PMLA Case observing that they have been in custody for more than 24 months.
Reiterating parity as an applicable ground, the Court noted that the main accused in the case, former Cabinet Minister Satyendra Jain, was also granted bail. While seeking parity and claiming a change in circumstance after the dismissal of their bail application, the petitioner submitted that as the trial was not likely to conclude in a reasonable period, the constitutional mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution would supersede the conditions stipulated under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
A Single Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed, “In the present case, both the applicants were arrested on 30.06.2022. They have been in custody since more than 24 months. Moreover, the trial is yet to commence and is likely take some time to conclude. It is also pertinent to note that the main accused Satyendra Jain has already been granted bail by the Sessions Judge vide order dated 18.10.2024. Parity as a ground is applicable even in PMLA cases.”
Senior Advocate Siddarth Aggarwal appeared for the petitioner, while Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain represented the respondent.
Vaibhav and Ankush Jain (petitioners) argued that their prolonged incarceration without a foreseeable trial conclusion compromised their “right to life and liberty” under Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioners submitted that they had complied with prior interim bail conditions.
The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) opposed the bail, arguing that delays were partly due to adjournments by accused parties. Nevertheless, the High Court stated that the applicants had not exhibited any actions constituting a flight risk or attempts to tamper with evidence, which underlined the constitutional right to a timely trial and fair treatment even under stringent provisions.
The High Court noted that since further investigation by the CBI was still pending, there was no possibility of the trial commencing in the foreseeable future and consequently, the present case under the PMLA also could not be finally determined and would inevitably be delayed due to the lack of progress of the trial in the predicate offence.
The Bench stated, “Section 45 of the PMLA while imposing additional conditions to be met for granting bail, does not create an absolute prohibition on the grant of bail. When there is no possibility of trial being concluded in a reasonable time and the accused is incarcerated for a long time, depending on the nature of allegations, the conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA would have to give way to the constitutional mandate of Article 21.”
The Court explained, “What is a reasonable period for completion of trial would have to be seen in light of the minimum and maximum sentences provided for the offence, whether there are any stringent conditions which have been provided, etc. It would also have to be seen whether the delay in trial is attributable to the accused.”
Consequently, the Court 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 each.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the bail applications.
Cause Title: Vaibhav Jain v. Directorate Of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:8408)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Siddarth Aggarwal; Advocates Malak Bhatt, Neeha Nagpal, Shreyansh Chopra and Vishwajeet Singh Bhati
Respondent: Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain; Panel Counsel Vivek Gurnani; Advocates Pranjal Tripahti and Kunal Kochar
