Delhi HC grants bail to VVIP chopper case accused Michel in ED case, cites trial delay

In her order, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma asked Michel to furnish a personal surety bond of Rs 5 lakh and surrender before the trial court his passport, which may not be released without the permission of the HC. The HC left it to the trial court’s discretion to impose remaining conditions. Earlier, Michel had told the HC that his passport has expired while countering ED’s claim that he was a flight risk.

The HC reiterated that provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot be interpreted in a manner to confine an accused for an indefinite period.

Noting that Michel has been in custody for “over six years and two months”, which is “alarmingly close to the maximum punishment” of seven years, without even being held guilty, the court said further incarceration would only render the “entire purpose of a trial meaningless”.

“…this court is of the view that while Section 45 of PMLA imposes stringent conditions for the grant of bail, constitutional courts, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court, have also emphasised time and again that this provision cannot be interpreted in a manner to confine the accused in judicial custody for an indefinite period of time,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said in her verdict.

The case “presents an exceptional situation” where the accused has been in custody for over six years but the trial has “not even commenced due to the incomplete investigation,” the court said. “Such prolonged incarceration, without any foreseeable conclusion of trial, would infringe upon the applicant’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.”

On February 18, the Supreme Court had also pointed to the delay in trial while granting bail to Michel in the CBI case.

“While the proviso to Section 436A allows courts to extend detention beyond this period in exceptional circumstances, the present case is not one where the applicant’s custody is only marginally beyond the halfway mark. Instead, the applicant has been in custody for over six years and two months — which is alarmingly close to the maximum punishment — without even being adjudicated guilty. It was pointed out that more than 100 witnesses are to be examined in the present case and there are more than 1,000 documents relied upon by the prosecution. Given that the trial is unlikely to conclude before the applicant completes even seven years in jail, further incarceration would render the entire purpose of a trial meaningless,” the HC said.

CrPC Section 436A provides that an accused who has undergone detention for up to half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence, shall ordinarily be released on bail unless the court, for reasons recorded in writing, directs otherwise.

The ED had argued that there was clear ground to exercise discretion under Section 436A and not grant bail till the trial is concluded.
Justice Sharma took into consideration the fact that investigation has not been concluded, charges have not been framed, trial has not begun, and Michel has already been granted bail in the CBI case by the SC. The court did not accept the ED’s argument that Michel is a flight risk.