The Supreme Court of India held on Wednesday that the principle “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” applies to cases under the country’s Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). This was stated by a bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan, who granted bail to an accused in a money laundering case linked to valuable property acquisition through alleged fraudulent means.
The prosecution in this case alleged that the accused, Prem Prakash, conspired with other individuals to falsify land records and execute a series of fraudulent transactions. Prakash was accused of being the beneficial owner of a firm that received a significant portion of the proceeds from these transactions. On August 11, 2023, Prakash was taken into custody under the PMLA. He had already been in custody since August 2022 for another case. Despite his repeated pleas for bail, the Special Judge and subsequently the Jharkhand High Court denied him relief. Prakash then approached the Supreme Court, seeking bail.
The Supreme Court overturned the Jharkhand High Court’s decision and granted bail. The apex court considered the long duration of Prakash’s incarceration and the slow pace of the trial, burdened by a large number of witnesses, as key factors in its decision.
Justice Viswanathan, in the judgement, emphasized that Section 45 of the PMLA does not rewrite the legal principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception. Section 45 imposes stringent conditions for granting bail to those accused of money laundering. It states that bail can only be granted if the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the bail application and if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offense while on bail. This section overrides the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, making it extremely difficult for accused individuals to secure bail.
However, the Supreme Court clarified that while Section 45 lays down specific conditions, it does not override the fundamental principle that personal liberty is a constitutional right. The court noted that the imposition of twin conditions under Section 45 must be viewed within the framework of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law.
