‘No Trial By Incarceration’: Delhi Court Grants Bail To Sukesh Chandrashekhar In PMLA Case

Special Judge Vishal Gogne of the Rouse Avenue Court passed the order.

Allowing the plea under Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the Court directed Chandrashekhar’s release on a personal bond of ₹5 lakh along with sureties of the like amount. It also imposed standard conditions, including a bar on contacting or influencing witnesses, mandatory disclosure of address and mobile number, surrender of passport, and prior permission for foreign travel.

"Accused Sukash Chandershekar @ Sukesh is admitted to bail on furnishing PB & SB in sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- each. The accused shall not contact, influence or coerce any person or witness connected with the present trial. The accused shall furnish his address and mobile phone number by way of a compliance report before the court upon release on bail. The same shall also be communicated to the investigating officer by the accused. The accused shall surrender his passport, if any, before the court and shall not travel outside India without permission from the court," the Court ordered.

Emphasising constitutional safeguards, the Court observed that an accused cannot be kept in custody indefinitely when there is little likelihood of the trial concluding within a reasonable timeframe. “Continued incarceration beyond a reasonable period amounts to violation of personal liberty,” the Court noted.

The Court underscored that Section 479 BNSS carries a mandatory character, pointing out that the provision uses the phrase “shall be released” upon completion of half of the maximum prescribed sentence. While acknowledging limited exceptions, the Court held that such exceptions cannot be invoked in a manner that defeats the core principle of liberty.

Taking note of the period of custody, the Court recorded that Chandrashekhar had already undergone detention exceeding half of the maximum seven-year sentence prescribed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). It further observed that proceedings in the predicate offence are currently stayed, significantly reducing the possibility of early conclusion of the trial.

Rejecting objections raised by the Enforcement Directorate, the Court held that the gravity of allegations or pendency of multiple cases cannot automatically disentitle an accused from statutory bail. It stressed that each case must be assessed on its own merits and that the seriousness of the offence alone cannot override fundamental rights.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that the right to speedy trial forms an integral part of Article 21. It warned that prolonged incarceration without meaningful progress in trial would effectively amount to punishment before conviction, which is impermissible in law.

In a significant observation, the Court cautioned against what it termed “trial by incarceration,” stating that even stringent laws like the PMLA cannot eclipse constitutional guarantees. “Liberty remains the most sacrosanct principle,” the Court emphasised.

The case stems from allegations that Chandrashekhar acted as a middleman in a bribery attempt to influence the Election Commission of India in relation to the AIADMK party symbol dispute, with alleged proceeds of crime amounting to approximately ₹2 crore.

Advocate Anant Malik appeared in the matter.

The Court said, "Speedy trial of the accused being presently improbable, the court is unimpressed with the strident opposition of the ED to the prayer for bail being granted. The court finds the circumstances of the accused to be ripe for extending to him the near mandatory benefit under section 479 (1) BNSS. The court would record a plea of its judicial conscience to state that while liberty may, more often than not, lend itself to absolutism, arguments advocating wanton restraint upon liberty merit no such indulgence."

In a related news, the Rouse Avenue Court, in August 2024 had granted bail to Sukesh Chandrashekhar citing "any interpretation which defeats the pre-eminence of bail over jail should be avoided”.

Sukesh Chandrashekar, facing 34 criminal cases, was accused of orchestrating an INR 215 crore heist while being imprisoned by deceiving Shivinder Mohan Singh of Ranbaxy. The Supreme Court ordered his transfer from Tihar Jail to Mandoli Jail, following his plea citing threats to his life. Chandrashekar's lawyer claimed extortion in jail, while ASG SV Raju noted that the accused was unable to continue his criminal activities due to the transfer of supportive officials.