The Madras High Court has recently set aside a trial court order in the city, granting bail to Ahmed Buhari, arrested by the ED in connection with a money laundering case linked to the import of inferior quality coal and its supply to the public sector undertaking in India as a superior quality by inflating its price.
Allowing a petition filed by the ED, Justice G Jayachandran set aside an order of the XIII CBI Court (Special Court for PMLA cases), dated August 16, 2023, while granting bail to the accused.
The grant of bail in haste without making the detailed order throws suspicion over the conduct of the trial Court.
However, the judge stated that this Court was not dwelling upon that aspect since this matter was for the High Court administrative side to take note and proceed.
The allegation was that Buhari generated over Rs 564 crore through the overvaluation of coal and diverted more than Rs 557 crore through his companies.
The judge added that the materials placed indicate that the accused can’t be presumed to be not guilty at this juncture.
The judge stated the delay in completing the investigation by the CBI that can’t be a ground to presume that the accused was not guilty of a money laundering offense. Closure of investigation in a similar case also can’t be a reason to presume that the present case will also end in a closure report. Ifs and buts can’t be an adequate reason to hold this petitioner not prima facie guilty of the alleged offense.
The judge added, “no doubt personal liberty was a fundamental right of a person, yet, subject to reasonable restriction. Prolonged trial or incarceration pending trial was the antithesis of fundamental right. However, the reasonable restriction and the interest of the nation can’t be ignored while taking note of the fundamental right of an individual.”
Furthermore, in this case, records reveal that about 169 consignments with inflated prices being encashed fraudulently by the petitioner through his company and the money has gone out of the country. The provisional attachment of the property by efflux of time lost its enforceability and therefore if the petitioner was enlarged on bail, apart from repeating similar crime by floating new company, the danger of him fleeing from the hands of justice also can’t be ruled out.
