Cases Of 'Clean Acquittal' After Accused Suffered Long Incarceration As Undertrial May Give Rise To A Claim Of Compensation: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court observed that the cases of clean acquittal after the accused suffered long periods of incarceration as undertrial may give rise to claims for compensation.
The Court clarified that the 'clean acquittal' does not include cases where the witnesses have turned hostile or there is a bona fide defective investigation.
The Court was hearing an Appeal challenging the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court who rejected the Bail Application preferred by the Tamil Nadu Ex-Transport Minister Senthil Balaji under Section 439 of the CrPC, 1973.
The bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “There are cases where clean acquittal is granted by the criminal courts to the accused after very long incarceration as an undertrial. When we say clean acquittal, we are excluding the cases where the witnesses have turned hostile or there is a bona fide defective investigation. In such cases of clean acquittal, crucial years in the life of the accused are lost. In a given case, it may amount to violation of rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution which may give rise to a claim for compensation.”
Brief Facts-
The Appellant Senthil Balaji, Ex-Tamil Nadu Transport Minister, was accused of collecting large sums of money, in collusion with his assistant and brother, by promising jobs in the Transport Department. Three FIRs were registered against him alleging offences under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467 and 471 of the IPC and Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Enforcement Directorate registered a money laundering case and he was arrested. A complaint was filed under Section 3 of the PMLA Act and the Special Court took cognizance based on the complaint. The Bail Application was in connection with the offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
The Court observed that the possibility of the trial of scheduled offences concluding even within a reasonable time of three to four years appears to be completely ruled out while noting that a few hundred witnesses will have to be examined, the presence of all the accused will have to be procured and their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 will have to be recorded.
The Court mentioned the decision in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and quoted, “Whereas at the commencement of proceedings, the courts are expected to appreciate the legislative policy against grant of bail but the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. Such an approach would safeguard against the possibility of provisions like Section 43D(5) of the UAPA being used as the sole metric for denial of bail or for wholesale breach of constitutional right to speedy trial.”
The Court observed, “Inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together…These stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time.”
Accordingly, the Court granted bail to the Ex-Minister and allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 739)