PMLA cannot detain suspects for unreasonable length of time: Delhi HC

New Delhi, October 28 (IANS): The Delhi High Court has said that the stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot allow suspects to be detained for an unreasonably long period.

It said that when “the trial is not likely to be completed within a reasonable time, Section 45 (of PMLA) cannot be allowed to become a chain leading to unreasonably long detention of the suspects.”

Under Section 45 of the PMLA, two tests have to be satisfied to obtain bail.

First of all, the court must be convinced that there are reasonable grounds to assume that the suspect is not guilty of such an offense.

Secondly, the court must be satisfied that the accused who is released on bail is unlikely to commit a criminal offense while on bail.

The Delhi HC further said that when the delay in commencement of trial cannot be attributed to the accused, it is not permissible to keep him in custody using Section 45 of the PMLA as an instrument of detention.

A bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri is considering a plea by the Vice President (Finance) of Bhushan Steel, who was arrested in January this year for allegedly creating fraudulent documents to avail Letter of Credit facility from banks .

The applicant submitted that the main accused, including Bhushan Singhal, Neeraj Singhal, Nitin Johari and Ajay Mittal, have already secured bail and the completion of the trial would take a long time.

In its ruling, the Delhi High Court noted that the trial in the predicate and the present complaint is yet to commence and would take some time to be completed.

“The right to liberty and speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 is a sacred right that must be protected and duly enforced even in cases where strict provisions have been made applicable through special legislation.

“The stringent provisions should be interpreted with due regard to Article 21 and in case of conflict, the stringent provisions like Section 45 of the PMLA in the present case should give way,” the report said.

Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, including the period of custody and the fact that the trial is yet to commence, the Delhi HC ordered that the accused be released on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1. .00,000 with one security deposit of the same amount.

Recently, the Supreme Court allowed the bail plea of ​​DMK leader V. Senthil Balaji in a money laundering case and emphasized that if PMLA imposes a higher threshold for granting bail, speedy disposal of the trial is also warranted.

It said: “Excessive delay in the completion of the trial and the higher threshold for granting bail cannot go together. These stringent provisions relating to grant of bail, like Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool that can be used to detain the accused without trial for an unreasonably long period.”

“The Constitutional Courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45(1)(ii) to become tools in the hands of the ED to continue the incarceration for a long period of time if there is no possibility of trial against the planned crime and the PMLA offense that will be concluded in no time. a reasonable period,” the top court said.

The 2022 judgment in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case upheld the stringent provisions of PMLA related to the definition of proceeds of crime, the power of arrest, search and seizure, seizure of property and also the double bail conditions.

A batch of petitions seeking review of the 2022 verdict in the Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case remain pending in the Supreme Court, apart from the petitions seeking reconsideration of the 2022 PMLA verdict and its reference to a larger bench.