Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal of Prem Prakash against the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand which had dismissed his bail application in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The appellant was arrested on 11.08.2023 in connection with ECIR Case No. 5 of 2023, which was based on a predicate offence involving fraudulent acquisition of land. The predicate FIR was registered on 08.09.2022 under various sections of IPC, and the appellant was not named therein. The ECIR was registered on 07.03.2023, and the appellant was later arrayed as Accused No. 8. The allegations involved a chain of transactions where proceeds of crime were allegedly routed through various entities, including M/s Jamini Enterprises, claimed to be beneficially owned by the appellant. The appellant had been in custody since 11.08.2023 and was also in custody in another ECIR since 25.08.2022. His bail was rejected by the Special Judge on 20.09.2023 and by the High Court on 22.03.2024. The Supreme Court considered the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA and the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, as reaffirmed in Manish Sisodia (II) and other precedents. The court noted that the appellant had been in custody for a considerable period and there was no likelihood of the trial concluding soon. It held that prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution and that the rigours of Section 45 can be relaxed in such circumstances. The court granted bail to the appellant subject to conditions, including furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10 lakhs with two sureties, surrendering passport, reporting to the investigating officer, and not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail under PMLA - Section 45 PMLA - Twin Conditions - The court held that Section 45 of PMLA does not rewrite the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception; the twin conditions only require satisfaction of reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit offences while on bail. (Paras 11-12) B) Constitutional Law - Right to Liberty - Article 21 of Constitution - Prolonged Incarceration - The court reiterated that keeping a person behind bars for unlimited periods in hope of speedy trial deprives fundamental right under Article 21; prolonged pre-trial detention should not become punishment without trial. (Para 12) C) Criminal Law - Bail - Delay in Trial - Section 45 PMLA - Where the accused has been in custody for considerable months and trial is not likely to conclude soon, the rigours of Section 45 can be relaxed to afford conditional liberty. (Para 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, given the prolonged custody and no likelihood of early conclusion of trial.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and granted bail to the appellant subject to conditions: (i) furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10 lakhs with two sureties; (ii) surrendering passport; (iii) reporting to the investigating officer every Monday; (iv) not tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses; (v) not leaving the country without permission; (vi) providing mobile number and address; (vii) not making any statement to the media.
Law Points
- Bail is rule and jail is exception under PMLA
- Section 45 twin conditions do not impose absolute restraint
- prolonged incarceration without trial violates Article 21
- twin conditions can be relaxed if trial not likely to conclude soon
