Bombay High Court rejects bail plea by Cox and Kings promoter in money laundering case

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday rejected a bail application filed by Cox and Kings promoter Ajay Kerkar in a money laundering case [Ajay Ajit Peter Kerkar v. Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.]..A single-judge bench of Justice Prithviraj K Chavan concluded that Kerkar was not entitled to be released on bail on the ground of delayed trial.“It is to be noted that even the right to be enlarged on bail after undergoing detention for a period exceeding one half of the minimum period of imprisonment (under Section 436A, CrPC) is not an absolute right. The Court may still deny the relief on the grounds such as delay of the trial at the instance of the accused himself," the Court added, in its January 10 order..The applicant, Ajay Kerkar, had approached the High Court seeking bail under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).Section 436A provides the maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained.The proviso to the Section says that no such person should be detained for more than half the maximum period of imprisonment provided for the offence in law..Kerkar was arrested in November 2020 in connection with a bank fraud case involving allegations of financial misconduct against Cox and King Group company, which has been undergoing insolvency since 2019.He remained in jail for two years and 340 days as an undertrial prisoner which was almost three years, being half of the sentence prescribed for a money laundering offence under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA).He claimed that charges had not been framed in the case till date and, hence, he was entitled to bail on the ground of inordinate delay in the commencement of the trial..The bail plea was opposed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The ED's counsel Hiten Venegaonkar asserted that the right to bail under section 436A of the CrPC had not yet accrued in Kerkar's favour.The lawyer added that such a right to bail would arise only on the day when half of the maximum period of imprisonment under Section 4 of PMLA would be over. The ED's counsel argued that in the present case, this period was yet to be completed. .Agreeing with ED's submissions, the Court rejected Kerkar's bail application..[Read order]