Madras HC grants bail to Jaffer Sadiq

Hindustan Times

21-04-2025

Chennai, The Madras High Court on Monday granted conditional bail to expelled DMK functionary Jaffer Sadiq, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate last year in connection with a money laundering case.
Justice Sunder Mohan also granted bail to Mohamed Saleem, brother of Jaffer Sadiq.
Sadiq was arrested by the ED on June 26 at the Tihar Jail in New Delhi, where he was lodged in judicial custody in a Narcotics Control Bureau case. The NCB had apprehended him in March 2024 for his alleged involvement in the smuggling of about 3,500 kg of pseudoephedrine with a street value of more than ₹2,000 crore.
On Monday, the HC said : "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 imposed various conditions including asking the petitioners to execute a bond for ₹5 lakh each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the XII Additional Special Judge for CBI case, Chennai.
They shall surrender their passports before the Special Court, if they have not already been seized by the ED, the judge added.
The petitioners shall appear before the trial court regularly and if their absence was not justified, the ED shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
The petitioners shall not make any direct or indirect attempt to contact the witnesses, the judge added.
The judge said the petitioners shall not abscond during trial. They shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. The petitioners shall provide their mobile numbers before the trial court and shall not change them without prior intimation to it, the judge added.
Concurring with the submissions of senior counsel Abudukumar, the judge said the undisputed facts would show that all the properties said to have been acquired through proceeds of crime have been attached. The investigation has been completed and the complaint has been filed in court. The two accused have been in custody from June and August 2024, respectively in the instant case
The trial was not likely to be concluded in the near future, as summons to some of the accused have not been served. There were 19 witnesses cited by the prosecution and several documents have been relied upon. Besides that, there were 20 accused in this case, the judge added.
He said the objections of ED further strengthen the conclusion that the trial was not likely to be completed in the near future. Even according to the prosecution, the alleged offences had taken place since 2015. The petitioners were at large till they were arrested in the year 2024, except for a brief period after their arrest for the predicate offences. Therefore, the fact that further investigation was pending cannot be the reason to detain the petitioners indefinitely.
That apart, it was needless to say that if the petitioners were found influencing any witness, it was always open to the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail and as on date, there was no complaint in this connection, the judge added.
The prolonged pre-trial detention was anathema to the Constitution, besides being in violation of basic human rights.
The judgment of the Supreme Court in K A Najeeb's case reiterated the position that when the constitutional courts find that there was an infraction of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the rigours of the provision, which places a restriction on bail, would be diluted. However, as to when this right was violated would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
It would depend upon the period of incarceration, the role played by the accused, the nature of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, and the likely punishment that can be imposed besides the possibility or otherwise of early conclusion of the trial, the judge added.