Latest news with #JafferSadiq
Time of India
21-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Jaffer Sadiq gets bail in money-laundering case
Cleared - mani Chennai: More than a year after his arrest, Madras high court on Monday granted conditional bail to the expelled DMK functionary Jaffer Sadiq in a money-laundering case. "Prolonged pre-trial detention is anathema to the Constitution, besides being in violation of basic human rights," Justice Sunder Mohan said. The court stated that bail is the rule and jail is an exception, and said, "bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, and it would be applicable even to cases registered under the PMLA if there is long incarceration and no possibility of a speedy trial, citing a Supreme Court order. "All the properties said to have been acquired through proceeds of crime have been attached. The investigation is complete, and the complaint has been filed in court," the judge said. The first accused, Jaffer Sadiq, was in custody from June 2024 in the instant case and was in custody from March 9, 2024, in the predicate offence. The second accused, Mohamed Saleem, was in custody from Aug 2024. The trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future, as summons to some of the accused have not been served, the court added. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like News For Jack Nicholson, 87, He Has Been Confirmed To Be... Reportingly Undo "There are 19 witnesses cited by the prosecution, and several documents have been relied upon. Besides that, there are 20 accused in this case," the judge pointed out. Even according to the prosecution, the alleged offences took place since 2015. The petitioners were at large until they were arrested in 2024, except for a brief period after their arrest for the predicate offences. Therefore, the fact that further investigation is pending cannot be the reason to detain the petitioners indefinitely, the court said. The court then directed the petitioners to execute a bond of Rs 5 lakhs each with two sureties before the special court for CBI cases and surrender their passports. The ED arrested Jaffer Sadiq on June 26, 2024, from Tihar Jail, where he was in judicial custody following his arrest by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). The NCB accused him of involvement in the smuggling of 3,500 kg of pseudoephedrine worth over Rs 2,000 crore. MSID:: 120489523 413 |
India Today
21-04-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Madras High Court grants bail to expelled DMK member in ED money laundering case
The Madras High Court on Monday granted conditional bail to expelled DMK functionary Jaffer Sadiq, who was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in a money laundering case linked to a major drug smuggling Sunder Mohan also granted bail to Sadiq's brother, Mohamed Saleem, observing that further incarceration would violate their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the ED had arrested Sadiq on June 26, 2024, from Tihar Jail, where he was in judicial custody following his March arrest by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). The NCB had accused him of involvement in the smuggling of 3,500 kg of pseudoephedrine, estimated to be worth over Rs 2,000 crore. Granting them bail, the court noted that the investigation in the ED case was complete, the properties allegedly acquired through crime had been attached, and the complaint had been filed. 'Prolonged pre-trial detention is anathema to the Constitution,' the judge remarked, adding that the trial was unlikely to conclude anytime soon due to pending summons and multiple court laid down strict bail conditions: both Sadiq and Saleem must execute bonds of Rs 5 lakh each with two sureties of like amount, surrender their passports, and regularly appear before the trial court. They were barred from contacting witnesses, tampering with evidence, or changing mobile numbers without prior judge further noted that there were 20 accused in the case, and 19 witnesses had been cited by the prosecution.'Even according to the ED, the alleged offences date back to 2015. The petitioners have been in custody since June and August 2024, and the trial is nowhere near completion,' the court the Supreme Court's ruling in the KA Najeeb case, the judge said the constitutional courts could dilute the rigours of bail restrictions when there was a clear infraction of Article Watch IN THIS STORY#Tamil Nadu
New Indian Express
21-04-2025
- New Indian Express
Madras HC grants bail to DMK leader Jaffer Sadiq, brother Mohamed Saleem in money laundering case
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 (NCB) 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 Rs 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 Rs 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.
Hindustan Times
21-04-2025
- Hindustan Times
Madras HC grants bail to Jaffer Sadiq
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.
