Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court has granted bail to former DMK functionary Jaffer Sadiq and his brother Mohammed Saleem, accused in a high-profile money laundering case linked to international drug trafficking.

The bench of Justice Sunder Mohan, tabling the judgment on April 21, 2025, emphasized that keeping them in jail for a long time without any clear sign of when the trial will begin would go against their right to personal freedom.

Court opined that the long delay in starting the trial was unfair, especially since even summons to some of the accused had not been served.

"Even according to the prosecution, the alleged offences had taken place since 2015. The petitioners were at large till they were arrested in the year 2024, except for a brief period after their arrest for the predicate offences. Therefore, the fact that further investigation is pending cannot be the reason to detain the petitioners indefinitely. That apart, it is needless to say that if the petitioners are found influencing any witness, it is always open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail and as on date, there is no complaint of any tampering or attempt to influence witnesses," court said.

The ED had arrested the two men in 2024, saying they were part of illegal drug trade networks and had laundered money earned from these activities. Sadiq was accused in three different drug trafficking cases registered by agencies in Chennai, Mumbai, and New Delhi. Saleem was accused in one of those cases.

According to the ED, the two received large sums of cash in their bank accounts, took unsecured loans that were just fake entries. The ED argued that the money came from the drug trade and that the two men tried to make it look like legal income.

Their bank accounts allegedly showed large cash inflows unsupported by income tax records. ED further contended that the accused used unaccounted funds to acquire several movable and immovable properties, many of which have now been attached.

But the lawyers for the accused pointed out that both had already received bail in the original drug cases. They said the ED had not provided enough proof that the money was from criminal activities. They argued that the ED failed to demonstrate a direct link between the cash inflows and the alleged narcotics trade. They also argued that since all the properties had already been seized and the investigation was done, keeping them in jail any longer served no purpose.

Moreover, the counsel for the accused cited several Supreme Court decisions, including Manish Sisodia v. ED, asserting that denial of bail due to indefinite detention without trial infringes the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Court noted that Sadiq was kept in illegal detention for four days after being granted bail in one of the earlier cases, which was against the law.

There are 20 accused in the case, 19 witnesses, and over 20,000 pages of documents. Court said that with so many people involved and summons still not sent to all of them, the trial is unlikely to start soon.

The ED argued that the two men had political connections and might influence witnesses or harm the investigation if released. While acknowledging the ED’s this concern and the international scope of the investigation, the court noted that indefinite pre-trial custody was unjustifiable.

Court also pointed out that there was no proof that they had tried to do this so far, and if they did in the future, the ED could ask for their bail to be cancelled.

Court said that keeping people in jail for too long before trial goes against their basic rights. Accordingly, both men were granted bail on strict conditions, including a bond of Rs. 5 lakh, surrender of passports, regular court appearances, and a prohibition on contacting witnesses or tampering with evidence.

On February 25, 2024, the ruling DMK expelled Sadiq, who is also a film producer, from the party after reports linked him to the international drug cartel busted by Delhi Police and the NCB.

Case Title: Jaffer Sadiq and another vs. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement