Article 21 Of Constitution Applies Irrespective Of Nature Of Crime. Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Amounts To Punishment Without Adjudication: Calcutta HC

Calcutta High Court granted bail to Santanu Banerjee, who had been in custody since March 10, 2023, in connection with a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The court cited prolonged detention, delays in trial, and the constitutional guarantee of liberty as key reasons for its decision, emphasizing that stringent statutory provisions cannot override fundamental rights.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleged that Banerjee, an employee of the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) and a former Vice-President of the Trinamool Youth Congress, was involved in generating proceeds of crime by facilitating illegal teacher appointments in the 2014 Teachers Eligibility Test (TET). The charges stemmed from statements and documents implicating him in handling bribes and accumulating disproportionate assets.

The petitioner argued that he was not named in the original FIR or charge sheets of the predicate offence, maintained no direct involvement with the principal accused, and claimed the allegations were based on uncorroborated statements from co-accused persons.

Justice Suvra Ghosh noted that Banerjee had been incarcerated for nearly 20 months, while the trial involved 25 accused, 182 statements, and 210 documents, making the completion of proceedings unlikely in the near future. Citing Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which allows bail for first-time offenders after serving one-third of the maximum sentence, the court stated:

"Rejecting the prayer of the petitioner at this stage and granting him liberty to renew his prayer upon completion of the said time frame shall serve no purpose at all."

The court referred to precedents such as Manish Sisodia v. CBI, which underscored that delays coupled with prolonged incarceration violate Article 21:

"Prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial."

While granting bail, the court imposed stringent conditions to prevent interference with the judicial process:

A bail bond of ₹10,00,000 with adequate sureties, half of whom must be local.
Surrender of the petitioner’s passport.
Restriction on leaving the trial court's jurisdiction without permission.
Prohibition on tampering with evidence, contacting witnesses, or engaging in criminal activity.

The court explicitly stated that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not influence the trial:

"The learned trial court shall deal with the matter independently in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation which may have been made in this judgment."

This judgment reaffirms the balance between stringent provisions under the PMLA and the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. It highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring that delays in complex investigations do not lead to indefinite pretrial incarceration.

Date of Decision: November 26, 2024