NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday said an accused who had spent a year in jail and charges were yet to be framed in the money laundering case against that person could be considered for bail depending on his verdict in the Senthil Balaji Case.
SC has been granting bail to accused in money laundering cases after reading the strict bail provisions of the PMLA by ruling that delay in trial and prolonged imprisonment could be grounds for granting bail. But until now it had not specified the period beyond which a PMLA accused could not be kept in custody. The one-year deadline will help bring uniformity for courts to deal with bail applications.
Affidavit was not vetted through proper channel, ‘suspicious’ in the way it was presented, Department of Education says
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan clarified the one-year period while hearing the bail declaration of Arun Pati Tripathiaccused in the Chhattisgarh Excise Case who was arrested by ED on August 8 last year. Since he has only spent about five months in custody, the court expressed reservations about granting him bail.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora and advocate Mohit D Ram, appearing for the accused, alleged that he had actually spent 18 months in prison as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had arrested him in August and before that, he was in prison for a predicate crime. . However, the court said he could not be considered for granting bail and agreed to consider the matter on February 5.
The apex court verdict in the Senthil Balaji case had held that strict provisions like Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA could not be turned into a tool to imprison accused without trial for an unreasonably long time and not They gave power to the State. detain an accused for an extended period.
The hearing witnessed an unexpected twist at the beginning when Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for ED, told the court that an affidavit filed by the agency before the court was not examined through proper channel. He said there was something “suspicious” about the way the affidavit was presented and asked the ED director to conduct an investigation.
The court expressed surprise that the agency could repudiate its own affidavit and questioned the role of the attorney of record through which the documents are filed in South Carolina. However, the senior law enforcement officer clarified that the AoR presented what the department gave it and the blame lay with the agency. The court subsequently asked the AoR of ED to appear before it.
Later, Raju said that though the person entrusted with the filing work, being new to the job, may not have followed the procedure entirely, the affidavit contained all valid arguments and grounds. The ASG and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta gave a nod to the AoR.