On November 27, the Supreme Court declared that individuals accused of money laundering will be required to submit an undertaking ensuring they will not seek adjournments or delay court proceedings as a prerequisite for being granted bail on the grounds of delayed trials.

Justice Abhay Oka observed, “So this is the course we want to adopt now if we are granting bail on the ground that the matter is not progressing. Interests will be balanced. Unless we find that something is really there on merits. That is a different case, we will grant bail on merits.” The bench, comprising Justice Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih, directed Zeeshan Haider, an accused in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case, to file such an undertaking to enable consideration of his bail application, which was sought due to trial delays.

Justice Oka further stated, “Whenever we pass the order of granting bail on the ground that trial will take time, we will take an undertaking from them. You file an undertaking, get it executed in jail wherever he is that 1) The day case is fixed or framing of charge, you will not seek adjustment, 2) After charge is framed, no further proceeding would be filed, and 3) you will cooperate with the trial.” The court clarified that it would only take the issue of trial delay into account if the accused agreed to these terms.

The case involves Aam Aadmi Party MLA Amanatullah Khan as the primary accused. Khan, in his capacity as chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board, is alleged to have carried out illegal recruitment activities, generating illicit proceeds. According to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), these funds were used to acquire properties through intermediaries. Khan has recently been granted bail in the case.

During the proceedings, Haider's counsel argued that his client had been in custody for over a year with no substantive progress in the trial. Justice Oka inquired about the case’s status, including the number of witnesses and the framing of charges. The counsel reported that the ED had cited 29 witnesses, but no charges had yet been framed. The delay was further compounded by a stay imposed on the trial by the Delhi High Court at the ED’s request, which was subsequently withdrawn. Document scrutiny by the ED was still ongoing, and the case was scheduled for further hearing on December 3, 2024.

To address the issue of trial delays, Justice Oka called for an undertaking from the petitioner, aimed at ensuring the trial progresses without unwarranted interruptions. The matter was scheduled for the following Tuesday at 2 PM, allowing the petitioner sufficient time to file the necessary undertaking.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, expressed concerns regarding a trial court order issued earlier that day. The Rouse Avenue Court had criticized the ED for causing delays and directed the agency not to oppose bail applications where the delays were attributable to its actions. The trial court granted bail to co-accused Kausar Imam Siddiqui, citing prolonged incarceration and the lack of progress in the trial.

Additional Solicitor General informed the bench that the trial judge had made remarks about “teaching a lesson to the ED” during open court proceedings and indicated the agency’s intention to challenge the order. Justice Oka remarked that the trial court’s directive appeared “very drastic.”

In recent rulings, the Supreme Court has granted bail to multiple accused individuals under statutes like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and other stringent laws, including the UAPA and the NDPS Act, on the basis of trial delays. The trial court, while granting bail to Siddiqui, cited a similar case involving UAPA-accused Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh.

When granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji, the Supreme Court underscored that stringent bail provisions under laws like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act should not be misused to prolong incarceration without trial. The Court reiterated that expeditious trials must be a fundamental consideration in such cases.

Case Title: Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement

Case no. : SLP(Crl) No. 9374/2024

Date: November-27-2024

Bench: Justice Abhay.S.Oka , Justice Augustine George Masih