Professional Update
(Criminal Case laws)
Criminal Appeal no. 4011/2024 (Supreme Court)
V. Senthil Balaji.
vs
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement.
Ratio.
Hon’ble Supreme court held that expedious disposal of the trail is for the crimes under the statues is a necessary, which have higher threshold for the bail. The constitutional court cannot allow the provisions like 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA to become a instruments in the hands of the ED to continue incarceration for a long time.
Facts.
The appeal takes an exception to the judgement and order dated 28th February 2024 passed by a single judge of the high court of judicature at madras by which a bail application preferred by the applicant under section 439 of the CrPC, 1973.
The bail application was holding the post of the transport minister in the government of Tamil Nadu. The allegation against appellant is that while discharging his duties as a Minister, in connivance with his personal assistant and his brother he collected large amounts by promising job opportunities to several persons in various positions in the transport department. The appellant is being incarcerated in the prison since 14 months and the ED has registered an ECIR dated 12th August 2023 which is punishable u/s 4 of the PMLA .
Issue.
Whether the accused is entitled to bail u/s 45 of the PMLA.
Findings.
The Hon’ble Supreme High Court has held that right of the personal liberty under article 21 is sacrosanct.
In the present case, the appellant has been accused in the ECIR which has a voluminous record and more than 2,000 accused person will have to be heard and more than 600 witness has to be examined. Documentary and electronic evidence is relied upon in the scheduled offence.
Even, in the ideal conditions, the possibility of the trail of the schedule offences concluding even within a reasonable time of 3 to 4 years to be completely ruled out.
![]()
Considering the gravity of the offences in such statues, expeditious disposal of trails for the crimes under the statues is contemplated. The expeditious disposal of the trail is also warranted considering the higher threshold in considering the bail application. Inordinate delay in the conclusion and the higher threshold for the grant of the bail cannot go together.
The well settle principle of criminal jurisprudence that “bail is a rule and jail is an exception”. These stringent provisions regarding the grant of the bail, such as section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trail for an unreasonably long time.
The Constitutional Courtscannot 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 thescheduled offence and the PMLA offence concluding within areasonable time. If the Constitutional Courts do not exercisetheir jurisdiction in such cases, the rights of the undertrials under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be defeated
Considering the above situation, the Applicant is admitted to bail.
(Disclaimer: The information provided by the author in the article is for general informational purposes only. All information provided is in the good faith, however we make no representation or warranty of any kind, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability or completeness of any information in the article.)
CA Manoj Garg
9811275735