The Supreme Court of India has granted bail to Prem Prakash, accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), overturning the Jharkhand High Court's decision to deny bail. The Court emphasized that the evidence presented, including statements recorded during custody, failed to substantiate the charges against Prakash. Citing principles of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court reaffirmed that bail is the rule and detention the exception, especially in cases where trial delays are likely.

Background of the Case

Prem Prakash was implicated in a money laundering case under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, 2002, linked to a fraudulent land transaction. He was not initially named in the FIR, but subsequent investigations by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) included him as an accused.

High Court Judgment

The Jharkhand High Court had denied bail to Prem Prakash, relying on the evidence provided by the ED, which included statements of co-accused and call records. The High Court's decision was based on the alleged role of Prem Prakash in the fraudulent land deal.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the statements recorded during judicial custody and other evidence presented by the ED were insufficient to establish a prima facie case against Prem Prakash. The Court also questioned the admissibility of these statements under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, which protects against self-incrimination.

Legal Principles Applied

The Court reiterated the importance of Section 45 of the PMLA, which sets twin conditions for granting bail but does not override the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21. The judgment emphasized that prolonged detention without trial should not be used as a punishment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and granting bail to Prem Prakash. The Court directed the trial court to release him on bail under specified conditions, including the surrender of his passport and regular reporting to the investigating officer. The ruling underlines the judiciary's role in balancing the rights of the accused with the need for effective law enforcement.