"Further Incarceration Would Violate Rights Under Article 21": Madras HC Grants Bail To Former DMK Functionary Jaffer Sadiq Arrested By ED
The Madras High Court has granted bail to former DMK functionary Jaffer Sadiq and his brother Mohammed Saleem who were arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a PMLA case. Considering that the trial was not likely to be completed in the near future, Justice Sunder Mohan opined that further incarceration would violate the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution....
The Madras High Court has granted bail to former DMK functionary Jaffer Sadiq and his brother Mohammed Saleem who were arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with a PMLA case.
Considering that the trial was not likely to be completed in the near future, Justice Sunder Mohan opined that further incarceration would violate the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, the court was inclined to grant bail on certain conditions to ensure that the duo would be available to face trial.
“Considering the various factors, this Court is of the view that further incarceration of the petitioners pending trial would violate their right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and hence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners on certain conditions, which would ensure that they are available to face the trial,” the court said.
The court thus ordered them to be released on bail upon executing a bond for the sum of Rs. 5 lakh each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Special Judge for CBI cases. The court also directed the parties to surrender their passport before the Special court if it is not already seized by the ED. The court directed the duo to appear before the trial judge regularly and gave liberty to the ED to seek cancellation of bail if their absence was not justified.
The court asked the petitioners not to make any attempts to contact the witnesses, abscond during trial, or tamper with evidence or witnesses during the investigation or trial. The court asked them to provide their mobile numbers to the trial court and not to change the number without prior intimation. The Magistrate was given liberty to take appropriate action in case of violation of any bond condition.
Backgorund
Sadiq was arrested by the ED on 26th June 2024 for alleged offences under Section 3 of the PMLA which was registered based on predicate offences registered by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) New Delhi, Customs Departments based in Mumbai and Chennai under Sections 9A, 25A, 29, 22(c), 23(c), 24, 30 and 25 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. Of the predicate offences, the first offence was registered in 2015, second in 2019, and the third was registered in 2024. ED argued that the petitioners were involved in the process connected with proceeds of crime, had substantial cash credited to their accounts, availed unsecured loans etc.
On behalf of Sadiq, it was argued that as per Section 19(1) of the PMLA, the ED was bound to record the reasons to believe that the petitioner was guilty of the offences. It was argued that ED had not shown that the unaccounted money was from the proceeds of crime. It was also submitted that Sadiq was granted bail in the predicate offence after satisfying the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA.
It was further submitted that the Jaffer's statements relied upon by the ED was inadmissible and the arrest and reasons to believe could not be based on inadmissible material. It was submitted that his arrest and remand was illegal and violative of Article 22(2) of the Constitution.
The ED on the other hand argued that bail in the predicate offence would not mean that the petitioners were not guilty as neither had been discharged or acquitted. It was argued that the arrest and remand was already challenged and was rejected and the petitioners could not re-agitate the same at this stage. ED also argued that long incarceration was not a ground for bail
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Manish Sisodia case, the court noted that the Supreme Court's judgment reminded the High Courts and the trial courts of certain fundamental principles i.e. Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, that bail should not be withheld as punishment, that it would be applicable even to cases registered under the PMLA if there is long incarceration and there is no possibility of a speedy trial.
In the present case, the court noted that the properties have already been attached, the investigation had been completed and the complaint had been filed in the court. The court also noted that the trial was not likely to be completed in the near future as summons to some accused were not yet served.
Noting that prolonged pre-trial detention is anathema to the constitution, the court reiterated that when rights under Article 21 are affected, the rigours of the provision restricting bail would be diluted.
Thus, considering all the factors, the court was inclined to grant bail and ordered accordingly.
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, Sr. Counsel, Mr. Sri Charan Rangarajan, Sr. Counsel for Mr. K. T. Sankara Subramanian
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. A. R. L. Sundaresan, ASGI, assisted by Mr. N. Ramesh, Special Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Jaffer Sadiq v. The Assistant Director
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
Case No: Crl.O.P.Nos.3508 & 3510 of 2025