“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.

Ajay Kerkar, the applicant, had petitioned the High Court for bail under Section 436A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

 

Section 436A stipulates the maximum duration an undertrial prisoner can be held in custody. According to the proviso within this section, no individual should be detained for more than half the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the alleged offense.

 

In November 2020, Ajay Kerkar was arrested in connection with a bank fraud case, entailing accusations of financial misconduct related to the Cox and King Group company. The company has been undergoing insolvency proceedings since 2019.

 

Section 436A outlines the maximum duration an undertrial prisoner can be held in custody, with the proviso stating that such detention should not exceed half the maximum imprisonment period stipulated for the offense. Ajay Kerkar was arrested in November 2020 in relation to a bank fraud case in which allegations of financial misconduct were leveled against the Cox and King Group company. Notably, the company had been undergoing insolvency proceedings since 2019.

 

Ajay Kerkar spent a total of two years and 340 days in jail as an undertrial prisoner, nearly three years, which constitutes half of the prescribed sentence for a money laundering offense under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA).

 

Ajay Kerkar asserted that as charges had not been framed in the case until the present date, he should be granted bail due to the prolonged delay in the initiation of the trial.

 

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) opposed the bail application, with ED's counsel Hiten Venegaonkar contending that the entitlement to bail under Section 436A of the CrPC had not matured in Ajay Kerkar's favor. The lawyer emphasized that this right to bail would only arise when half of the maximum imprisonment period specified under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act (PMLA) had elapsed. According to the ED's counsel, this stipulated period had not been completed in the current case. In alignment with the ED's arguments, the Court rejected Ajay Kerkar's bail application.