Sentence Suspended Due to Acquittal in Predicate Offences, Age, and Health Concerns; Court Imposes Environmental Contribution Condition
In a significant legal development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to Gurdeep Singh Manchanda, who was convicted under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, ordered the suspension of Manchanda's remaining sentence, allowing him to be released on bail while his appeal is pending.
Manchanda was previously sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 30,000 for his involvement in money laundering activities. However, the High Court's decision to suspend his sentence was influenced by several factors, including his acquittal in predicate offences, his advanced age, and health issues.
The Court acknowledged that Manchanda, aged 73, had already served over a year of his sentence and highlighted that the appeal process could take a considerable amount of time. "No purpose would be served by keeping the applicant-appellant in custody," the judgment noted.
The decision also emphasized Manchanda's acquittal in related predicate offences, as determined in a previous trial concluded in February 2019. This acquittal played a pivotal role in the High Court's decision to grant bail, as it cast doubt on the legitimacy of the initial charges against him.
In addition to the standard bail conditions, the Court imposed a unique requirement on Manchanda, mandating him to plant and maintain 20 saplings during the upcoming monsoon season. This condition underscores the Court's commitment to promoting environmental responsibility among those involved in legal proceedings.
Legal representatives for Manchanda, including Senior Advocate Mr. Bipan Ghai, argued for the suspension of the sentence, citing his client's innocence and the undue hardship caused by prolonged incarceration given his age and medical ailments. The defense also referenced a recent Supreme Court judgment in a similar case to bolster their plea.
Conversely, the Enforcement Directorate's counsel opposed the suspension, arguing that Manchanda had been actively involved in the alleged crimes and should not receive leniency.
Ultimately, the High Court's decision to suspend Manchanda's sentence during the pendency of his appeal reflects a balanced consideration of the legal, humanitarian, and environmental factors at play.
The case is scheduled for further proceedings on April 1, 2026.
Bottom Line:
Suspension of sentence during the pendency of appeal granted under Section 389 Cr.P.C. in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, considering the applicant's acquittal in predicate offences, age, medical ailments, and prolonged duration for disposal of appeal.
Statutory provision(s): Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
