Cause Title: Prem Prakash vs. Union of India Through The Directorate of Enforcement
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. [SLP (Crl.) No. 5416/2024]
Judgment Date: 28th August 2024
Quorum/Bench: K.V. Viswanathan, J., and B.R. Gavai, J
In the facts of the present case, we hold that the statement of the appellant if to be considered as incriminating against the maker, will be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act since he has given the statement whilst in judicial custody, pursuant to another proceeding instituted by the same Investigating Agency. Taken as he was from the judicial custody to record the statement, it will be a travesty of justice to render the statement admissible against the appellant. [Para 27]
In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors. reported in (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929, this Court categorically held that while Section 45 of PMLA restricts the right of the accused to grant of bail, it could not be said that the conditions provided under Section 45 impose absolute restraint on the grant of bail. Para 131 is extracted hereinbelow:-
“131. It is important to note that the twin conditions provided under Section 45 of the 2002 Act, though restrict the right of the accused to grant of bail, but it cannot be said that the conditions provided under Section 45 impose absolute restraint on the grant of bail. The discretion vests in the court, which is not arbitrary or irrational but judicial, guided by the principles of law as provided under Section 45 of the 2002 Act. …”[para 11]
Independently and as has been emphatically reiterated in Manish Sisodia (II) (supra) relying on Ramkripal Meena Vs Directorate of Enforcement and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, where the accused has already been in custody for a considerable number of months and there being no likelihood of conclusion of trial within a short span, the rigours of Section 45 of PMLA can be suitably relaxed to afford conditional liberty.[Para 12]
The appellant argued that he was not involved in the forgery of sale deeds and had no knowledge of any illegal activities. He contended that his prolonged detention was unjustified, particularly as the trial had not commenced, and sought bail under the premise that the twin conditions of Section 45 PMLA could be relaxed.
The Directorate of Enforcement opposed the bail application, claiming that the appellant was pivotal in the alleged money laundering scheme, coordinating with other accused and benefitting from the proceeds of the crime. The respondent emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and the implications of the appellant's release on bail.
The Court observed that while Section 45 PMLA imposes stringent conditions for bail, it recognized that prolonged incarceration without trial could infringe on the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the principle of "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" must be upheld, particularly in cases where trial delays are evident.
These observations are significant and if read in the context of the recent pronouncement of this Court dated 09.08.2024 in Criminal Appeal No. 3295 of 2024 [Manish Sisodia (II) Vs. Directorate of Enforcement], it will be amply clear that even under PMLA the governing principle is that “Bail is the Rule and Jail is the Exception”[Para 11]
The Court granted bail to the appellant, finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that he was not guilty of the alleged offenses under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. The Court also held that the appellant was not likely to commit any offense while on bail, thereby satisfying the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA.
Comments