The maxim that bail is norm and jail exception and even stringent laws have a humane face, was reinforced again today by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who allowed bail for an ailing man arrested under the rigorous anti-money laundering law. “However stringent PMLA is, as judges we have to operate in the four corners of the law. Law tells us that someone who is sick and infirm be granted bail,” Justice Chandrachud said. 

“That he could be treated at a government hospital is no answer to what the statute says. Sick or infirm means you can be granted bail,” he added, while presiding over a three-judge bench hearing the interim bail petition of 67-year-old Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani, former chairperson of Seva Vikas Co-operative Bank, who was arrested in July last year.

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act or PMLA is non-bailable since unlike other laws, the accused here has to prove that he is not guilty. 
An accused gets bail only when the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the offense, and not likely to commit any offense while on bail. Even so, the public prosecutor has to be given an opportunity to oppose bail. 

This provision — listed under Section 45 of the law – was upheld earlier by the Supreme Court.

The bench today said the “Proviso to Section 45 (1) of PMLA specifically contemplates that a person who ‘is sick or infirm’ may be released on bail if the special court so directs”.

Earlier several people, including Aam Aadmi Party’s Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Bharat Rashtra Samithi’s K Kavita had got bail, though after spending months in jail. AAP’s Satyendar Jain had also got interim bail last year on health grounds.

New Delhi:

Stressing that bail is the rule and jail exception, the Supreme Court today said any incriminating statement given by an accused to the investigating officer while in custody in a money laundering case will not be admissible as evidence.

The court made the strong observation while granting bail to Prem Prakash, allegedly an aide of Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, in a money laundering case. This comes a day after the Supreme Court granted the relief to Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha, who was arrested in March in a money laundering case linked to Delhi’s now-scrapped liquor policy. Earlier this month, AAP leader Manish Sisodia was also granted bail in a money laundering case.

In today’s judgment, the bench of Justice BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan said, “Relying on the judgment in Manish Sisodia, we have said that even in PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), bail is a rule and jail the exception.”

The bench referred to Section 45 of the PMLA that mentions twin conditions for bail — there should be prima facie satisfaction that the accused has not committed the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

All that Section 45 specifies, the court said, is the conditions to be met for bail. “Liberty of the individual is always the rule and deprivation, by procedure established by law, the exception. Twin test does not take away this principle,” it added.

The bench clarified that any incriminating statement made by an accused in custody in a PMLA case before an investigating officer will not be admissible in court. “It will extremely unfair to make such statements admissible as it will be against all canons of justice.”

The prosecution, the court said, has to prima facie crystallise the issues and facts for consideration of bail under PMLA.

“The appellant is not prima facie guilty of the offences and unlikely to tamper with evidence, hence a fit case for bail. Observations only limited to bail and shall not influence the trial in accordance with law,” the bench said, granting the relief to Prem Prakash.

The top court’s latest order has come a day after the relief to BRS leader K Kavitha in which the court questioned central agencies if they were free to “pick and choose” an accused.

READ: ‘Just Because Woman Is Educated…’: Top Court’s Rap As K Kavitha Gets Bail

The bench of Justice BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan said it was “sorry to see this state of affairs”. “The prosecution has to be fair. You can’t pick and choose anyone. What is this fairness? A person who incriminates himself has been made a witness,” the bench said.

Earlier this month, while granting relief to Mr Sisodia, the court had cited ‘bail is the rule’ principle.

READ: “Travesty Of Justice”: Manish Sisodia Gets Bail, Supreme Court Slams Delay

“Trial court and High Court ought to have given due weightage to this. Courts have forgotten that bail ought not to be withheld as punishment,” the court had said, holding the accused’s right to liberty as “sacrosanct”.

Chennai:

A special court in Chennai framed charges against former Tamil Nadu Minister V Senthil Balaji under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act on Thursday in connection with an alleged cash-for-jobs scam. According to the Enforcement Directorate (ED), the alleged scam took place between 2011 and 2015, when Mr Balaji was the Tamil Nadu transport minister under the AIADMK government led by the late J Jayalalithaa.

During the proceedings on Thursday, Senthil Balaji pleaded not guilty, alleged political vendetta and said he wanted to cross-examine witnesses. The court, however, adjourned the case to August 16 for the cross-examination. 

Mr Balaji was arrested by the ED in connection with the alleged scam in June 2023 when he was the electricity minister under Chief Minister MK Stalin of the DMK. He was taken into custody after being questioned for hours and was hospitalised after complaining of chest pain.

The minister was retained by the Tamil Nadu government as a show of support but resigned in February this year after the Madras High Court said political compulsion could not outweigh public morality. 

The DMK has accused the BJP of misusing central agencies, including the ED, to target political opponents. The BJP has denied the allegations and claimed that the ED is following the rule book.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court observed that the ED needs to focus on the quality of prosecution and evidence, citing low conviction rates in cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The observation came after Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai told the Lok Sabha that more than 5,200 money laundering cases had been registered by the ED since 2014 and convictions were obtained in 40.

A view of Supreme Court of India. File
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

The Supreme Court on July 15 agreed to consider a submission for setting up a constitution Bench to hear pleas challenging the validity of passage of laws such as the Aadhaar Act as Money Bills allegedly to bypass the Rajya Sabha.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) D. Y. Chandrachud and justices J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was urged by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who also heads the Supreme Court Bar Association, that the pleadings are complete and the petitions needed to be listed for hearing. “I will take the call when I form the constitution Benches,” the CJI said.

Earlier, the top court had said it would constitute a seven-judge Bench to consider the issue of validity of passage of laws such as the Aadhaar Act as a Money Bill.

The decision was aimed at addressing the controversy around Money Bills after the government introduced legislations such as the Aadhaar Act and even amendments to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as Money Bills, apparently to circumvent the Rajya Sabha where it did not have a majority then.

A Money Bill is a piece of legislation which can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha cannot amend or reject it. The Upper House can only make recommendations which may or may not be accepted by the Lower House.