In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to the appellant, who was charged under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
The appellant was charged under Sections 7, 11, and 12 of the PMLA. The allegations stemmed from a predicate offense involving illegal transportation of cattle across the border and subsequent bribery of officials. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) accused the appellant of using the proceeds from these activities for money laundering.
The appellant's counsel presented three key arguments for bail. Firstly, they pointed out that the co-accused in the case had already been granted bail, arguing for parity in treatment. Secondly, they highlighted the prolonged incarceration of the appellant, which, including the period in the predicate offense, amounted to nearly four years. Lastly, they emphasized that the trial was yet to commence, suggesting an undue delay in the judicial process.
The prosecution strongly opposed the bail application. They contended that the charges were extremely serious and that the period of incarceration should not be considered as grounds for bail in this case. The ED also argued that the delay in trial commencement was due to the appellant's request for additional documents.
After considering the arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court decided to grant bail to the appellant.
The Court noted that the appellant had been incarcerated for more than 2½ years in the present case alone. It also considered the complexity of the trial, with 85 witnesses to be examined. The bench observed that even if the period of incarceration in the predicate offense was excluded, the continued detention of the appellant, who was not entirely at fault for the trial delay, warranted consideration for bail.
Importantly, the Court emphasized that the appellant could not be solely blamed for the non-commencement of the trial. It recognized that the delay did not benefit the accused in any way.
This case serves as a significant precedent in matters relating to bail in cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The judgment is likely to influence future bail decisions in similar cases, particularly where there are substantial delays in trial commencement and prolonged periods of pre-trial detention.
It must be noted that the Supreme Court has recently made significant rulings that potentially ease the stringent bail provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). In cases like Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement SLP(Crl) No. 8781/2024 and SLP(Crl) No. 8772/2024 and Prem Prakash v. Union of India through the Directorate of Enforcement SLP(Crl) No. 5416/2024, the Court has emphasized that the principle "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" applies even to PMLA cases. The Court stated that in situations of delayed trials coupled with prolonged incarceration, the right to bail should be read into Section 45 of PMLA, depending on the nature of the allegations. The twin conditions are:
These conditions make it difficult for the accused to secure bail, emphasizing the severity of money laundering offenses and ensuring that bail is granted only in exceptional cases. However, there has been a shift from the Court's earlier stance in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v Union of India (2022), where it had upheld the stringent bail conditions of PMLA. The Court has now stressed the importance of constitutional rights under Article 21, balancing them against the powers of the Enforcement Directorate under PMLA. These judgments indicate a trend towards fostering safeguards for individual liberty within the PMLA framework, potentially making it easier for accused persons to obtain bail in money laundering cases, especially when trials are delayed.