Stringent provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cannot be used as a “tool of confinement”, the Delhi High Court said on Tuesday.
The court made this observation while granting bail to two persons in a money laundering case probed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED), involving senior Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader and former Delhi Health Minister Satyendar Jain were.
The court said that when the trial is not likely to be completed quickly and the delay is not attributable to the accused, “it is not permissible to keep the accused in custody using Section 45 of the PMLA as a chain”.
Under the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA, an accused has to prove his prima facie innocence and convince the judge that he would not commit any offense while he was out on bail.
A bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri also observed that an accused in a money laundering case cannot be equated with someone being tried for serious crimes like murder, rape or dacoity.
“The liberty of an accused cannot be restricted by Article 45 without taking into account all other relevant considerations,” the court observed while granting bail to Vaibhav Jain and Ankush Jain.
The former minister, who is currently out on bail, is accused of money laundering through four companies linked to him.
The ED has alleged that Mr Vaibhav Jain and Mr Ankush Jain were business associates of the AAP leader and had facilitated the commission of the crime.
While granting bail to them, the court noted that they had already spent two years in jail for an offense for which the maximum sentence is seven years. “Section 45 of the PMLA, while imposing additional conditions to be fulfilled for granting bail, does not create an absolute prohibition on granting bail,” Justice Ohri said.
‘Bail, no prison, the rule’
The court underlined that bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception. “This principle is nothing but an instantiation of the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 21, which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law,” the court added to.
Published – Oct 30, 2024 01:10 IST