“It would be very wrong to say, under a particular statute, bail cannot be granted.”

According to Police, Sheikh Javed Iqbal had confessed, he was engaged in illegal trade of supplying counterfeit Indian currency notes in Nepal. Sheikh Javed Iqbal was arrested on 23.02.2015. We are in July, 2024. 9 years have gone by. A reasonable view can be taken, trial is proceeding at snail’s pace, would not be concluded in near future and is likely to take considerable time.

Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 2787 of 2024, decided on 03.07.2024, was also a case where fake counterfeit Indian currency notes were seized. Court held, howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial.

We are in respectful agreement with Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) SCC Online SC 50 rendered by a 3 Judge Bench. NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1 has to be read and understood in context in which it was rendered and not as a precedent to deny bail. A long incarceration with unlikelihood of trial being completed in near future is a good ground to grant bail [See, Angela Harish Sontakke v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 3 SCC 723]. Also, Courts cannot impose freakish conditions while granting bail [See, Frank Vitus v. Narcotics Control Bureau, Criminal Appeal No. 2814-15 of 2024, decided on 08.07.2024].

A continued incarceration of Sheikh Javed Iqbal cannot be justified.

– Hon’ble Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Criminal Appeal No. 2790 of 2024].

_____

Section 45 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 by imposing twin conditions does not mean, liberty is an exception. Those conditions must be satisfied. Independently, and as has been emphatically reiterated in Manish Sisodia (II), Criminal Appeal No. 3295 of 2024 relying on Ramkripal Meena v. Directorate of Enforcement, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 3205 of 2024 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine 1693, where an accused has already been in custody for a considerable number of months and there being no likelihood of conclusion of trial within a short span, rigours of Section 45 can be suitably relaxed to afford conditional liberty.

– Hon’ble Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Prem Prakash v. Union of India, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5416 of 2024] decided on 28.08.2024.

_____

Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2024) 6 SCC 401 used the phrase “persons of tender age and women who are likely to be more vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by unscrupulous elements”. This is vastly different from saying, the proviso to Section 45(1) of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applies only to a “vulnerable woman”.

– Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Kalvakuntla Kavitha v. Directorate of Enforcement, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10778 of 2024] decided on 27.08.2024.

V. Senthil Balaji was Transport Minister in Government of Tamil Nadu between 2011 and 2016. Broadly, allegation is, V. Senthil Balaji while discharging his duties as a Minister, in connivance with his Personal Assistant and his Brother, collected large amounts by promising job opportunities to several persons in various positions in Transport Department. As of now, V. Senthil Balaji has been incarcerated for more than 15 months in connection with offence punishable under Section 4 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Judges of Constitutional Courts have vast experience. Based on facts on record, if Judges conclude, there is no possibility of a trial concluding in a reasonable time, power of granting bail can always be exercised by Constitutional Courts on grounds of violation of Part III of Constitution notwithstanding statutory provisions. If V. Senthil Balaji’s detention is continued, it will amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of speedy trial. If V. Senthil Balaji seeks adjournments on non-­existing or frivolous grounds or creates hurdles in an early disposal of cases mentioned, bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled.

– Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, [Criminal Appeal No. 4011 of 2024] decided on 26.09.2024.  

_____

Athar was arrested on 12.07.2022. He has undergone custody for more than 2 years and 4 months. Till date charges have not been framed, which is an admitted position. There are 40 accused and 354 witnesses to be examined. There can be no doubt, trial is not likely to complete soon. Athar cannot be allowed to languish in jail indefinitely and that too without a trial. If such an approach is allowed, Article 21 would stand violated.

Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713; Javed Ghulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693 and Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India, (2022) 14 SCC 766 would squarely apply, entitling Athar for grant of bail.

– Hon’ble Justice Augustine George Masih, Athar Parwez v. Union of India, [Criminal Appeal No. 5387 of 2024] decided on 17.12.2024.

_____

Learned Brother Mithal has rightly opined, a Pandora’s Box cannot be permitted to be opened by letting a horde of convicts and/or undertrial prisoners seek release for purpose of trying their luck at electoral hustings.

– Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Mohd. Tahir Hussain v. State of NCT of Delhi, [Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 856 of 2025] decided on 22.01.2025.