Bail the norm, jail is exception even in PMLA cases, says SC

Contact Counsellor

Last Updated30/08/2024

The apex court made the observation while granting relief to Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren’s aide, Prem Prakash, in an illegal mining-related case registered by the ED

The Supreme Court's ruling on August 28, 2024, reaffirms the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, even in cases involving serious allegations like money laundering. This landmark judgment emphasizes the protection of individual liberty and the importance of due process in criminal proceedings.

The judgment was delivered in a case involving Prem Prakash, an aide to Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, who was implicated in an illegal mining case by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
The central issue before the Court was the application of Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), which sets stringent conditions for granting bail in money laundering cases.

Liberty as a Fundamental Principle: The Bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, underscored that the liberty of an individual is a fundamental principle, and its deprivation must be an exception, not the rule.
The Court emphasized that any deprivation of liberty must adhere to a procedure established by law, which should be valid and reasonable.
Interpretation of Section 45 PMLA: The judgment clarified that Section 45 of the PMLA should not be interpreted to make bail an impossibility in money laundering cases.
The Court highlighted that the twin conditions under Section 45, which include the belief that the accused is prima facie innocent and will not commit any offense while out on bail, must be met for bail to be granted.
Reference to Manish Sisodia’s Case: The Court referred to its earlier ruling in the Manish Sisodia bail judgment to assert that bail cannot be denied based on the whims of investigative agencies like the ED.
This reinforces the judiciary's stance that the presumption of innocence remains a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence.

A significant aspect of the ruling addressed the ED’s powers under Section 50 of the PMLA, which allows the agency to summon individuals and compel them to produce documents and give statements.
The Court held that this power cannot infringe upon the fundamental right against self-incrimination, as enshrined in Article 20(3) of the Constitution.
Justice Viswanathan, in his judgment, reasoned that a person in custody cannot be considered a "free person" capable of making voluntary statements. Therefore, any self-incriminatory statement made by an individual in custody, under pressure from the same investigating agency, would be inadmissible as evidence.
This protects the accused from coercive tactics that violate principles of fair play and justice.

This judgment has far-reaching implications for the criminal justice system, particularly in cases involving white-collar crimes like money laundering. It reinforces the idea that fundamental rights, including the right to liberty and protection against self-incrimination, must be safeguarded even in the face of serious criminal allegations.