Section 45(1)(ii) PMLA Does Not Confer Power On State To Detain An Accused For Unreasonably Long Time: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that Section 45(1)(ii) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 does not confer power on the State to detain an accused for an unreasonably long time, especially when there is no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time.
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, “When the trial of the complaint under PMLA is likely to prolong beyond reasonable limits, the 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 the State to detain an accused for an unreasonably long time, especially when there is no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time.”
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 clarified that what a ‘reasonable time’ is will depend on the provisions under which the accused is being tried and other factors. The Court observed, “One of the most relevant factor is the duration of the minimum and maximum sentence for the offence. Another important consideration is the higher threshold or stringent conditions which a statute provides for the grant of bail. Even an outer limit provided by the relevant law for the completion of the trial, if any, is also a factor to be considered.”
The Court said that the Constitutional Courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45(1)(ii) to become instruments in the hands of the ED to continue incarceration for a long time when there is no possibility of a trial of the scheduled offence and the PMLA offence concluding within a reasonable time.
“If the Constitutional Courts do not exercise their jurisdiction in such cases, the rights of the undertrials under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be defeated.”, the Court added.
Accordingly, the Court granted bail to the Ex-Minister and allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 739)
