Unable to pay bail surety, businessman gets jail for 3 years in NSEL scam
India Today
A 53-year-old man accused in the NSEL scam, who has been in jail for the past three years despite being granted bail, amid failure to pay Rs 5 lakh surety, a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court has now reduced the amount to Rs 1 lakh.
A 53-year-old man accused in the NSEL scam, who has been in jail for the past three years despite being granted bail, amid failure to pay Rs 5 lakh surety, a special Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) court has now reduced the amount to Rs 1 lakh.
Accused Ranjeev Aggarwal has been lodged at Taloja jail. In his plea he had sought the amount be reduced to Rs 50,000. He was not able to comply with the bail conditions in spite of his best efforts and hence he remained in judicial custody for more than 2 years of granting bail.
The ED had opposed the application stating that the offence of money laundering registered in the case is of serious nature.
The agency also said that “Considering Aggarwal’s role in the offence of money laundering and his blatant disregard to the rule of law by not presenting himself before this court even after several NBW's and proclamation, the present accused did not present himself before this court. The act and conduct of accused person show that he is leaned towards disobeying the orders of this court. Also, the accused cannot take benefit of his own wrong, as accused is in judicial custody due to noncompliance of bail conditions.”
The agency further submitted that while deciding bail conditions, court acts in accordance with its own judicial wisdom and accused cannot guide the court for imposing conditions favourable to him.
Also, considering the previous conduct of accused, it is essential to impose stringent conditions for bail, in order to prevent bail jumping, said the agency.
Special Judge AS Sayyad said, “Except this accused, rest of other accused appear to be released on bail. This accused also granted bail but due to big surety amount, he appears to have not complied the same. In such circumstances, no prejudice would be caused to prosecution, if the present application is allowed by reducing the sureties amount,” said the judge.
