NEW DELHI: Observing that rigorous bail provisions in statutes like PMLA, anti-terror law UAPA and NDPS Act cannot become a ‘tool’ to keep an undertrial accused in jail for unreasonably long time, Supreme Court on Thursday held that the requirement of expeditious disposal of cases must be read into these statutes as inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together.
The directive to the executive to take a fresh look at the laws where the onus is on the accused to prove his innocence came from a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih while hearing the bail petition of the former Tamil Nadu minister Senthil Balaji. Though the bench agreed that there was a prima facie case against Balaji in a money laundering case arising from cash-for-jobs scam dating to his 2011- 2016 tenure as transport minister in AIADMK government, it decided to give him bail on the ground that the TN politician had already spent 15 months in jail and there was no likelihood of the case being concluded in near future, considering that the case involves 2,000 accused and 500 witnesses.
Examining the evidence against Balaji, the bench said there is no reason, at this stage, to doubt its authenticity of the soft files and there is also prima facie material to show a deposit of cash amount of Rs.1.34 crore in his bank account. “At this stage, the contention of the appellant regarding the deposit of remuneration received as MLA and agriculture income cannot be accepted in the absence of any prima facie evidence to show the existence of the appellant’s cash income as MLA and the appellant’s agriculture income. Therefore, at this stage, it will be very difficult to hold that there is no prima facie case against the appellant..,” it said.
The ED could not be permitted to use stringent bail provision Section 45(1)(ii) as a instrument to keep an accused in custody for long period, held Justices Oka and Masih. The bench imposed stringent conditions on Balaji- he has to report to ED every Monday and Friday and has to be present in courts holding trial in corruption and money laundering cases.
A prominent politician who was was the target of an intense campaign by DMK which accused him of corruption, Balaji switched sides. He was a minister when he was taken into custody. The apex court court noted in its verdict that a higher threshold has been provided in these statutes for the grant of bail as reflected in Section 45(1)(ii) of PMLA, proviso to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, overriding the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code.
“Considering the gravity of the offences in such statutes, expeditious disposal of trials for the crimes under these statutes is contemplated. Moreover, such statutes contain provisions laying down higher threshold for the grant of bail. It is a well-settled principle of our criminal jurisprudence that bail is the rule, and jail is the exception. These stringent provisions regarding grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time,” SC said.
SC held that prolonged incarceration without trial is violative of rights of an accused and the court should step in to protect him and no provision can take away the power of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of fundamental rights.
“When trial of the complaint under PMLA is likely to prolong beyond reasonable limits, Constitutional Courts will have to consider exercising their powers to grant bail. The reason is that Section 45 (1)(ii) does not confer power on State to detain an accused for an unreasonably long time, especially when there is no possibility of trial concluding within reasonable time.”