(Bhaskar Vishwajeet, Senior Editor at IELR)
On August 9, 2024, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court granted bail to the former Deputy Chief Minister of Delhi in the Delhi liquor policy case. The Bench stated that a long period of incarceration coupled with non-commencement of trial had prevented the accused from availing the right to a speedy trial.
In allowing the bail, the Court explicitly mentioned that the right to bail, in cases of delay, must be read into Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Section 45 stipulates the cognizable and non-bailable nature of offences under the Act. The Court observed that trial courts need to be considerate with regard to the right to a speedy trial and prolonged periods of incarceration without any progress in trials.
The Court has provided a very important clarification concerning a fundamental charging provision under the Act. Restating the cardinal principle of ‘bail is the rule, jail is the exception’, the twin bail conditions under Section 45 will now be subjected to a ‘judicially-qualitative’ assessment of an accused’s trial period. This might help streamline the Act’s implementation by the trial courts, possibly reducing PMLA-specific appellate pendency in the Supreme Court and reducing the number of those incarcerated pending trial.
That said, further updates are awaited in this regard since the Supreme Court has decided to review its judgement in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022). The said judgement – which reversed the burden of proof onto the accused and reinforced Section 45’s mandate – has become a core precedent that currently guides enforcement of the Act.
(Incremental update to be provided)
Kommentare