Application of the Law from Sarajevo to Tuzla: What Message Does Setting Bail for Mittal and Others Send?

Written by: Amra Varatanović

At the Cantonal Court in Tuzla today, a hearing was held on setting bail for Pramod Mittal and his two accomplices, who were arrested six days ago for organized crime, abuse of position and authority in business to the detriment of GIKIL from Lukavac. Mittal is the Chairman of the Supervisory Board of GIKIL, while the arrested individuals are Rajib Das, a board member, and Paramesh Bhattachary, the company's general director.

The Prosecutor's Office of Tuzla Canton accuses them of having extracted 21 million KM from GIKIL between 2006 and 2015. At today's hearing, bail of three million KM and a guarantee of 11 million euros, the amount of damage caused to GIKIL, were requested.

The money was extracted in various ways, and the investigation also covers the former director Debashish Ganguly, for whom a warrant was issued after his escape from Bosnia and Herzegovina. The extracted money ended up in the company GSHL, which is owned by Mittal. Workers of GIKIL in Lukavac, who suffered great damage, had not had their pension contributions paid, nor their salaries, and suppliers were left without claims, had also warned about the crime.

Even after the initiation of liquidation proceedings, Mittal and others continued with the illegal extraction of money. It remains unclear what happened in the period before 2006, given that GSHL entered the Lukavac company in 2003.

Legal experts explained to Patria that this is a specific case where bail is set immediately, only three days after the determination of custody.

They remind that in the case of Alija Delimustafić, the appeal of the Sarajevo Canton Prosecutor's Office was accepted multiple times by the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, precisely because the amount of bail should be determined considering the severity of the criminal offense, the personal and family circumstances of the accused, and the financial status of the person providing the bail. The Supreme Court also required that the person providing the bail submit evidence of their financial status, the origin of the property, ownership, and possession of that property offered as bail. Delimustafić spent 20 months in custody, after which his lawyer requested that bail be set for him. To this day, Delimustafić has not been released from custody, nor has the trial begun, almost three years after the Operation Justice.

In the case of Mittal and others, and given that they are foreign nationals and the possibility of a repeat of the Ganguly case, the same criteria as in the Delimustafić case should be respected. It is interesting that the Prosecutor's Office of Tuzla Canton so quickly agreed to the setting of bail in a case where multi-million euro crime and damage to Bosnia and Herzegovina are evident.

If identical evidence as in the Delimustafić case is not required, then it is clear that the judicial system and the law are applied differently from case to case. This certainly does not send a message that all citizens are equal before the law.