GG News Bureau
New Delhi, 28th August. The Supreme Court on Wednesday reiterated that bail should be the rule and jail the exception, particularly in money laundering cases. The court declared that any incriminating statements made by an accused while in custody and given to the investigating officer would not be admissible as evidence.
This strong stance was taken by a bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan as they granted bail to Prem Prakash, who is alleged to be an aide of Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, in a money laundering case. This decision follows closely on the heels of the Supreme Court’s relief to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha, who was arrested in March in connection with a money laundering case linked to Delhi’s now-scrapped liquor policy. Additionally, Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader Manish Sisodia was granted bail earlier this month in a similar case.
In its judgment, the bench cited its earlier decision in the Manish Sisodia case, stating, “Even in PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), bail is a rule and jail the exception.” The bench referred to Section 45 of the PMLA, which outlines twin conditions for granting bail: there must be prima facie satisfaction that the accused has not committed the offense, and the accused is not likely to commit any offense while on bail.
The court emphasized that Section 45 merely specifies conditions for bail and does not override the principle that personal liberty is the norm, and its deprivation should only occur following due process. “The twin test does not take away this principle,” the court added.
The bench further clarified that any incriminating statements made by an accused in custody before an investigating officer in PMLA cases would not be admissible in court. “It would be extremely unfair to make such statements admissible as it would go against all canons of justice,” the court noted.
The prosecution, according to the court, must clearly establish the issues and facts for consideration of bail under the PMLA. The bench concluded that Prem Prakash was not prima facie guilty of the offenses and was unlikely to tamper with evidence, making it a fit case for bail. The court emphasized that its observations were limited to the bail decision and should not influence the trial.
This ruling comes just a day after the court extended similar relief to BRS leader K Kavitha, during which the court questioned the fairness of central agencies in their handling of accused individuals. “The prosecution has to be fair. You can’t pick and choose anyone,” the bench remarked, criticizing the selective approach of the agencies.
Earlier this month, while granting bail to Mr. Sisodia, the court underscored the principle that “bail is the rule,” criticizing lower courts for overlooking this fundamental right. “The right to liberty is sacrosanct,” the court had asserted.
Comments are closed.