Case Law Details
P John Britto Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Kerala High Court)
The case of P John Britto Vs Directorate of Enforcement before the Kerala High Court pertained to the imposition of bail conditions on accused individuals in a money laundering case. Initially granted bail with restrictions on leaving India, subsequent developments led to a modification of these conditions. This article explores the judgment’s implications, particularly regarding the necessity of prior sanction for international travel.
The judgment addresses the grievances of the petitioners, who contested the requirement of obtaining permission before leaving the country. Notably, the court had previously altered bail conditions for another accused (Accused No.15), removing the necessity of prior sanction. The court observed that neither the initial order nor its modification had been challenged by the respondents, thus establishing a precedent.
In light of this, the court ruled that the petitioners, standing on the same footing as Accused No.15, should benefit from the same conditions. Consequently, the conditions set forth in the modified order pertaining to Accused No.15 were extended to the petitioners. These conditions involved informing the court before leaving India, depositing a specified amount as security, and filing an affidavit regarding legal representation and identity confirmation.
The judgment also nullified the requirement of prior sanction for international travel imposed by the lower court, thereby granting relief to the petitioners. However, the court clarified that its order did not authorize the renewal of the petitioners’ passports. Any such renewal would necessitate appropriate permission from the jurisdictional court, ensuring legal compliance.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court’s judgment in P John Britto Vs Directorate of Enforcement establishes uniform bail conditions for all accused individuals in the money laundering case. By extending the benefit of modified bail conditions to the petitioners, the court ensures equitable treatment. The ruling underscores the importance of consistency and fairness in legal proceedings while upholding the principle of due process.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
Petitioners are accused Nos.8, 10, 14 and 16 in S.C.No.533/2018 on the files of the Special Court (for the Trial of Prevention of Money Laundering Act Cases), Ernakulam. Initially, they were granted bail by an order dated 01.10.2022 wherein conditions were imposed that they shall not exit India without the prior permission of the court. In the meantime, the first accused in the case was granted bail without imposing any conditions regarding his travel out of the country. Hence, accused No.15 approached this Court for permission to travel abroad, and by order dated 11.12.2023 conditions c & d in Annexure-A1 order were modified by substituting it with two other conditions. Petitioners thereafter approached the Special Court for modification of the bail conditions as relating to them. By order dated 27.02.2024, the Special Court deleted the condition regarding the deposit of passport and directed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to be deposited as security. However, the requirement of prior sanction before leaving the country was maintained.
2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the condition directing to obtain permission before leaving the country. This Court had issued Annexure-A3 order dated 11.12.2023 substituting conditions c & d in Annexure-A1 as far as 15th accused is concerned. Respondents have not challenged either Annexure-A1 or Annexure-A3 orders. Since petitioners stand on the same footing as that of the 15th accused, there is no reason why they should not be given the same benefit as that of the 15th accused. Therefore, I am of the view that the same conditions imposed in Annexure-A3 should be incorporated for the petitioners as well.
3. Therefore, condition Nos. c & d in Annexure-A1 order dated 01.10.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.35/2022 in S.C.No.533/2018 on the files of the Special Court (for the Trial of Prevention of Money Laundering Act Cases), Ernakulam shall stand substituted with the following conditions :-
“c. Petitioners shall inform the court before leaving India. Petitioners shall also deposit an amount of Rs.one lakh and if they violate any of the conditions of bail, the amount will be forfeited.
d. Petitioners shall file an affidavit before the jurisdictional court to the effect that they will be represented throughout by a lawyer and that they will not dispute their identity, if the trial proceeds in their absence.”
4. In the result, the impugned order to the extent it imposed condition to obtain prior sanction of this Court before travelling outside shall stand set aside.
5. It is clarified that this order shall not be treated as an order permitting renewal of the passport of the petitioners. However, if in case renewal is required appropriate permission shall be obtained from the Jurisdictional court.
The Crl.M.C.is disposed of.
Author Bio
