Money laundering: Four get bail after 1K days in jail

The accused filed the bail petition stating that they have been in jail for more than one-third of this time period and are entitled to bail.

Delhi Waqf Board Money laundering case: Court issues notice to ED on MLA Amanat Ullah Khan's bail plea  

CHENNAI: Four men facing trial in a money-laundering case arising out of an alleged Rs 1,137 crore cheating case were given bail by a CBI court in Chennai as they had faced incarceration for more than 1,000 days.

In the October 29 order, principal judge for CBI cases T Malarvalantina cited the provision of Section 479(1) of BNSS which entitles a first-time offender to bail if he has been in jail for one-third of maximum period of punishment specified for the offence under the law.

The accused -- N Umashankar, N Arun Kumar, V Janarthanan and A Saravanakumar of Disc Assets Lead India Ltd -- were arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in March 2022 in a money-laundering case which is punishable under Section 4 of PMLA.

The maximum punishment under this section is seven years. The accused filed the bail petition stating that they have been in jail for more than one-third of this time period and are entitled to bail.

The case pertains to alleged money laundering by the accused after collecting Rs 1,137 crore from the public through their companies by announcing an investment scheme. The predicate offence in the case was an FIR registered in June 2016 by Economic Offences Wing of Tamil Nadu police under the TN Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, cheating and criminal conspiracy.

Charges have been framed in the case which is currently under trial and 20 prosecution witnesses have been examined, the ED’s counsel told the court. If the accused are released on bail, it would vitiate the trial proceedings, the counsel claimed.

The counsel vehemently opposed grant of bail citing subsection (2) of Section 479 of BNSS arguing that it overrides subsection (1) if inquiry, investigation or trial in multiple cases is pending against the accused. The counsel cited the ongoing probe in the predicate offence to show that subsection (2) would be applicable.

However, the judge cited a Madras HC order of October 24 and two SC orders to rule in favour of granting bail. The judge also noted that there was no dispute that the accused were first-time offenders.