PMLA Case: YES Bank Co-Founder Rana Kapoor Gets Bail in Money Laundering Case
(Judicial Quest News Network)
A special PMLA Court in Mumbai granted bail to YES bank co-founder Rana Kapoor in a money laundering case in which he was arrested.
In March 2020, ED had detained Rana Kapoor, 65, the former MD and CEO of the private bank, under PML Act.
He would not however walk out of the jail because the CBI court have not granted him bail in a similar case.
In its detailed order granting bail to YES bank co-founder Rana Kapoor on Thursday, observed that many cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) have been pending trials are held up even though accused are behind bars as undertrial prisoners.
The Prevention and Money Laundering Act came into force in 2002. Ever since till date, it is nearly about 21 years, even if statistics of disposal of cases available on the website of the ED is considered as it is, in last 21 years out of 1142 cases hardly 25 cases could be disposed off, indicating that per year ratio is one case per year in all over India. No one is sure those disposed off 25 cases are with
simultaneous disposal of cases relating to Scheduled Offence as per
Sec.44(1)(c) of the PML Act.
Pronouncing the verdict, the court said that the case has “rocked the entire banking system” This case rocked the Indian banking system. Yes bank went into difficulty and the Reserve Bank of India RBI had to step into protect the investors.
The trial in the case cannot begin or end in light of the Supreme Court’s expectations and guidelines (in a different case), thus he was entitled to relieve under section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and deserves to be freed on bail. As per the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, applicability of Sec.436A Cr.P.C. has to be decided on the case-to-case basis and in this particular case I am of the opinion that the trial is not delayed at the instance of accused. On the contrary it is the accused who had tried and undertaken the work which ED was under obligation of Sec.44(1)(c) of the PML Act and ought to do.
Kapoor, on his part never initiated any proceedings to prolong the trial, nor did he limit the ed’s proceedings before this court.According to court ED did not argue that Kapoor’s bail plea, filed through solicitors Rahul Agarwal and Jasmine Purani that he had been imprisoned for more then three and a half years, half the maximum punishment authorised for the offence under the PMLA.
Special Judge MG Deshpandey, who was hearing the plea, noted in his order that unduly incarcerated Rana Kapoor has a long period in jail. In the beginning His specific contention was that the delay in the beginning of the trial by framing charges has not been caused due to delay in proceedings on his part.
ED had contended that Rana Kapoor one of the main accused persons, being M.D cum C.E.O. of yes bank during the relevant period, had misused his position to gain undue financial benefits for him, his family members and associates by involving himself in bribery, corruption and money laundering activities.
The verdict further says that “It is pertinent to note that in the instant case the applicant(A1) was arrested on 08.03.2020 and till date he is an undertrial prisoner. ED ought to have noted this fact at the relevant time and would have applied immediately for commitment of the cases relating
to the Scheduled Offence. However, on its own ED never applied for
commitment of CBI Special Cases for their simultaneous trial with this
PMLA Special Case as per Sec.44(1)(c) of the PML Act. The applicant
(A1), who is 66-year-old, has been suffering undue incarceration,
though not eligible to file application under Sec.44(1)(c), was
constrained to file such application as ED was silent”
Apart from this, the basic principle of law is that accused is
to be supposed innocent unless his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. In case in future accused is acquitted what about his undue incarceration amounting minimum sentence which he has undergone for no reasons? This is really a serious question. Prolonged undue incarceration of 3 years 9 months of applicant (A1) without trial and without even beginning the initial stage of framing charge and also without prompt step by the ED as mandated under Sec.44(1)(c) of the PML Act itself melt down the rigors of twin conditions under Sec.45(1) of the PML Act. Therefore, contention of ED to reject the bail application is nothing but giving implied grant to them to continue their further investigation as per Explanation (ii) to Sec.44(1) of the PML Act until the period of 7 years and also more than that.
The further observed that in such a situation, even if Kapoor’s case is scheduled every day there is no likelihood of its disposal, at least in the coming 2 years.
