NEW DELHI: Responding to the argument that the verdict passed last week by a Supreme Court bench, that twin conditions must be followed while granting bail in PMLA cases, was inconsistent with earlier rulings, another bench of the court on Monday clarified that there was no conflict as the issues of delay in trial and prolonged incarceration were not before the first bench that was dealing with an accused who had been in jail for seven months.
The SC, in various rulings involving AAP’s Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, and DMK’s V Senthil Balaji, has ruled that an accused who has been in custody for a long time could be granted bail despite stringent twin conditions in PMLA if there was no chance of trial being concluded in the near future.
Accordingly, the court granted relief to Kejriwal, Sisodia and Balaji.
Courts must speak in one voice, say top advocates; PMLA orders consistent: SG
While quashing bail to the accused in a money laundering case, a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Prasanna B Varale last Thursday held that bail should be given only when the twin conditions under PMLA were fulfilled and that courts should refrain from taking a casual or cursory approach while granting such relief as the offence of money laundering posed serious threat not only to the financial systems of the country but also to its integrity and sovereignty and could not be regarded as an ordinary crime.
Section 45 (of PMLA) imposes two conditions for grant of bail to any person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule. The two conditions are that (i) the prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application for bail; and (ii) the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused person is not guilty of such offence and that he is not liable to commit any offence while on bail. “As well settled, these two conditions are mandatory in nature and they need to be complied with before the accused person is released on bail,” the bench of Justices Trivedi and Varale had said.
Appearing before a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan on Monday, senior advocates Sidharth Luthra and M R Shamshad said different benches of SC had not been taking a consistent approach which was creating confusion. They said courts should speak in one voice and added that SC’s earlier verdicts were perhaps not brought to the bench’s notice which passed the verdict quashing bail.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the bench that there was no inconsistency as the accused in that case had spent just seven months and 18 days in custody which could not be deemed to be long incarceration. He said the accused was not in custody for more than a year and that was perhaps why the bench did not rely on the SC’s verdict in the Senthil Balaji and other cases.
The bench, thereafter, perused last week’s verdict and clarified that SC’s ruling in cases, including Balaji and Kejriwal, was not applicable and that was perhaps the reason why it was not relied upon. It then granted bail to the accused in money laundering case in which he has been in custody since Dec 2023.