Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case

Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case

22 November 2024 4:20 PM

By: sayum


The Calcutta High Court, on November 20, 2024, granted bail to Kuntal Ghosh, a petitioner implicated in a high-profile money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Justice Suvra Ghosh emphasized the right to speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, stating that prolonged incarceration without trial amounts to a violation of fundamental rights.

The petitioner had been in custody for 22 months since his arrest on January 21, 2023, following allegations of involvement in the illegal recruitment scam for teaching and non-teaching staff in West Bengal. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleged that Ghosh played a pivotal role in collecting over ₹100 crore from candidates in exchange for facilitating illegal appointments in government jobs. The ED’s case linked the petitioner to substantial financial irregularities, citing the seizure of properties, cash deposits, and incriminating electronic evidence.

Ghosh sought bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused Manik Bhattacharya, who was released on bail in a similar case earlier this year. His counsel argued that Ghosh’s prolonged detention without trial, coupled with the slow pace of judicial proceedings due to the complexity of the case—thousands of documents and over 300 witnesses yet to be examined—warranted bail. Ghosh’s counsel further highlighted that he had not been interrogated in the past 18 months, demonstrating the lack of urgency on the part of the investigating agency.

The court considered multiple precedents, including Union of India vs. K.A. Najeeb (2021), which underlined that Article 21 overrides even stringent bail conditions under special statutes. The court also referred to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (amended Section 436A of CrPC), which stipulates that first-time offenders detained for more than one-third of the maximum prescribed sentence must be considered for release. The petitioner’s case involved a maximum sentence of seven years, and his detention for nearly two years fell within the purview of this provision.

While the court acknowledged the gravity of economic offenses and their impact on society, it emphasized that the right to life and personal liberty must not be subjugated to statutory restrictions. Justice Ghosh stated that "prolonged incarceration without trial cannot become punishment before conviction," adding that the petitioner’s constitutional rights under Article 21 take precedence.

The court imposed stringent bail conditions to ensure the petitioner’s compliance with legal proceedings. Ghosh was directed to furnish a ₹10,00,000 bond with adequate sureties, surrender his passport, refrain from leaving the trial court’s jurisdiction, and avoid any contact with witnesses or tampering with evidence. The court made it clear that any violation of these conditions would lead to the cancellation of bail.

In its decision, the court clarified that the observations made were limited to the bail application and would not influence the trial’s outcome. The ruling reflects the court’s balanced approach in dealing with economic offenses while upholding constitutional safeguards for undertrials.

This case highlights the intersection of constitutional rights, judicial delays, and statutory restrictions in the context of economic offenses under the PMLA, with the court leaning in favor of individual liberty against prolonged pre-trial detention.

Date of decision: 20/11/2024

Similar News