NEW DELHI: Granting bail to two men recently in a money laundering case, Delhi high court has ruled that the stringent twin tests for grant of bail under Section 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) cannot be invoked as a tool to indefinitely detain accused persons when there is a delay in completing the trial.
“The right of liberty and speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 is a sacrosanct right which needs to be protected and duly enforced even in cases where stringent provisions have been made applicable by way of special legislation. The stringent provisions will have to be interpreted with due regard to Article 21, and in case of a conflict, the stringent provisions, such as Section 45 of PMLA in the instant case, will have to give way,” said the court.
The court made the remark while granting bail to two former Bhushan Steel Limited (BSL) officials, Pankaj Kumar Tewari and Pankaj Kumar – vice-presidents in finance and accounts departments of BSL, respectively – who were booked in connection with a Rs 46,000-crore money laundering case. The two officials have been accused of aiding the ex-promoters of BSL, the main accused, in the case.
The two got bail after over nine months in jail. The court took note of the fact that the main accused and similarly placed co-accused had already been given bail.
Observing that the case involved numerous defendants, extensive evidence spanning lakhs of pages and many witnesses, due to which the trial was unlikely to conclude anytime soon for no fault of the accused, the court said: “When there are multiple accused persons, lakhs of pages of evidence to assess (and) scores of witnesses to be examined, the trial is not expected to end anytime in the near future. Importantly, the delay being not attributable to the accused, keeping the accused in custody by using Section 45 PMLA as a tool for incarceration is not permissible. The flow of liberty cannot be dammed by Section 45 without taking all other germane considerations into account. It is the duty of constitutional courts to champion the constitutional cause of liberty and uphold the majesty of Article 21.”
“Constitutional courts can always exercise their powers to grant bail on the grounds of violation of Part III of Constitution of India, and stringent provisions for the grant of bail, such as those provided in Section 45 of the PMLA, do not take away the power of constitutional courts to do so,” said the court.
The court reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” in view of Article 21, adding, “Liberty is the usual course of action, and deprivation of it a detour, which is why there are safeguards imposed to ensure that the deprivation of liberty is only by procedure established by law.”