logo
 
     
   
 

Professional Updates > Criminal Laws

Professional Update
Category: Criminal Laws, Posted on: 20/10/2024 , Posted By: CA SHIKHAR GARG
Visitor Count:65

Professional Update

(Criminal Case laws)

Crl. Appeal no.  2251/2023 (Bombay High Court)

Tanaji Dattu Padwal

vs

Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

Ratio.

Hon’ble Bombay High court held Section 436A of the 1973 of CrPC, is a wholesome beneficial provision, which is for effectuating the right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and which merely specifies the outer limits within which the trial is expected to be concluded, failing which, the accused ought not to be detained further.

Facts.

The applicant filed an bail application u/s 439 of the CrPC read with section 45 of the PMLA. The applicant has been accused in the banking fraud wherein the pity depositor money has been turned into proceeds of crime. The bank has suffered huge financial loss since the applicant is a chief manager at the bank. The financial trouble faced by the bank due to the shortfall in the cash of around 76 crores, which was covered by the putting fudge entries turned the same as proceeds of crime. The applicant is being suffered incarceration since 3 years and 7 months and the maximum punishment u/s 4 of the PMLA is 7 years.

Issue.

Whether the applicant is entitled to bail as per the facts and circumstances of the case.

Findings.

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held As far as the scheduled offences are concerned i.e. C. R. No. 26 of 2020, there are about 256 witnesses proposed to be examined by the prosecution. Insofar as the present case is concerned, 9 witnesses are proposed to be examined by the prosecution. The Charge-sheet in both the cases is voluminous. It is an admitted position that both the cases will be tried simultaneously and trial has not yet commenced. Thus, this is a case where the trial is unlikely to conclude any time soon and is likely to take a considerably long time. As noted herein above, the Applicant has completed more than half of the punishment and therefore, entitled to the benefit of Section 436A of the CrPC. There is no material on record to show that the Applicant is responsible for delay in conducting the trial. There is no other circumstance brought to the notice of this Court which will disentitle the Applicant to seek benefit of Section 436A of CrPC.

Thus, case is made for grant of bail to the Applicant on the ground of long incarceration.

(Disclaimer: The information provided by the author in the article is for general informational purposes only. All information provided is in the good faith, however we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability or completeness of any information in the article.)

CA Manoj Garg

9811275735


To Activate comments you need to provide details for google authentication and facebook authentication
 
     
39650 Times Visited