HC upholds right to liberty and speedy trial and grants bail in PMLA case

NEW DELHI: Award bail to two men recently in a money laundering case, Delhi High Court has held that the stringent double tests for granting bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) cannot be invoked as a tool to detain suspects indefinitely when there is delay in the completion of the trial.
“The right to freedom and a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 is a sacred right that must be protected and properly enforced, even in cases where strict provisions have been made applicable through special legislation. The stringent provisions will have to be interpreted with due regard to Article 21 and in case of conflict, the stringent provisions like Section 45 of PMLA in the present case will have to give way,” the court said.
The court made this observation while granting bail to two former officers of Bhushan Steel Limited (BSL), Pankaj Kumar Tewari and Pankaj Kumar – vice presidents in BSL’s finance and accounting departments respectively – who were booked in connection with a case of Rs 46,000 crore. money laundering case. The two officials are accused of helping the ex-promoters of BSL, the prime suspect, in the case.
The two were granted bail after more than nine months in prison. The court took note of the fact that the main suspect and the co-suspect placed in the same position had already been released on bail.
Noting that the case involved numerous defendants, and that there was extensive evidence spanning many pages and many witnesses, making it unlikely that the trial would be concluded anytime soon through no fault of the defendant, the court said: “If there are multiple suspects, there may be pages of evidence to assess the dozens of witnesses to be interviewed, the trial is not expected to end in the near future. Importantly, since the delay cannot be attributed to the accused, keeping the accused in custody using Section 45 PMLA as an instrument of confinement is not permissible. The flow of freedom cannot be curbed by Article 45 without taking into account all other relevant considerations. It is the duty of constitutional courts to defend the constitutional cause of freedom and uphold the majesty of Article 21.”
“Constitutional courts can always exercise their powers to grant bail on the ground of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India, and stringent provisions for granting bail, such as those provided in Section 45 of the PMLA, do not take away the power . of constitutional courts to do this,” the court said.
The court reiterated that “bail is the rule and imprisonment the exception” in view of Article 21, adding: “Liberty is the usual course of action, and its deprivation a detour. Therefore, safeguards have been imposed to ensure that the deprivation of liberty can only take place in accordance with a procedure established by law.”