The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to interfere with the Patna High Court’s orders granting regular bail to RJD leader Subhash Prasad Yadav and Broadson Commodities Pvt. Ltd. directors Surendra Kumar Jindal and Baban Singh in a money laundering case arising out of the alleged illegal mining and sale of sand in Bihar.
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was hearing three special leave petitions filed by the Union of India/Enforcement Directorate challenging the Patna High Court’s orders granting bail.
The ED submitted that the respondents were accused in an ECIR registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, alleging generation of proceeds of crime through illegal mining and sale of sand. It argued that 17 scheduled offence FIRs were pending against the respondents and that the High Court erred in granting them bail despite the seriousness of the allegations.
Opposing the petitions, counsel for the respondents submitted that they had remained in custody for over a year before being granted bail. It was argued that the Patna High Court had noted that the trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time, particularly when 17 out of 19 predicate offence cases were still at the investigation stage.
The ED also alleged that the accused were delaying the trial by repeatedly seeking adjournments before the trial court on the ground that the present special leave petitions were pending before the Supreme Court. Taking note of the submissions, the Bench observed that interference with an order granting bail is warranted only in limited circumstances. Dictating the order, CJI Surya Kant observed:
“
“The principle with respect to interference with an order granting bail is that unless the order is found to be totally perverse, contrary to law, or is causing impediment in the ongoing investigation, this Court will be extremely reluctant to interfere.”
The Court, however, cautioned the respondents against adopting dilatory tactics before the trial court. Referring to repeated applications filed in criminal trials, the Bench remarked:
“
“If we find that your lawyers are adopting this kind of thing, because what is happening in the PMLA and NDPS kind of trials is that local counsel keep on moving one application after another, and every application is mysteriously designed… we can still do it.”
While refusing to cancel the bail granted by the High Court, the Court recorded an undertaking on behalf of the respondents that they would extend full cooperation in the ongoing investigation as well as the trial and would not create any impediment in either proceeding.
The special leave petitions were accordingly disposed of without interfering with the bail orders, subject to the respondents’ continued cooperation with the investigating agency and the trial court.