Bail cannot be denied indefinitely under PMLA due to trial delays, says Delhi HC
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court highlighted that the stringent twin tests for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), should not be misused as a tool to indefinitely detain accused individuals, particularly when trial completion is delayed. This observation was made by Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri while granting bail to two former officials of Bhushan Steel Limited (BSL) in a Rs 46,000 crore money laundering case.
The ruling, issued on October 24, grants bail to Pankaj Kumar Tiwari and Pankaj Kumar, both Vice Presidents in BSL’s finance and accounts departments. The two had been accused of assisting BSL’s ex-promoters (the main accused) in the alleged money laundering scheme. The court highlighted that the trial’s likely protracted timeline was not due to any actions on the part of the accused, noting the case involved a multitude of defendants, evidence spanning thousands of pages, and many witnesses. As such, the delay in trial progression was seen as unavoidable and beyond the accused’s control.
Justice Ohri underlined the constitutional mandate to protect personal liberty as outlined in Article 21 of the Constitution. He emphasised that while Section 45 of the PMLA imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, these cannot override the fundamental right to liberty, especially when the trial faces indefinite delays. “Flow of liberty cannot be dammed by Section 45 without taking all other germane considerations into account. It is the duty of constitutional courts to champion the constitutional cause of Liberty and uphold the majesty of Article 21,” Justice Ohri stated.
The judgement highlighted that when trial delays are prolonged, Section 45 of the PMLA must yield to the rights of the accused under Article 21. According to Justice Ohri, constitutional courts retain the authority to grant bail on the grounds of Part III of the Constitution, which safeguards fundamental rights. “The right of liberty and speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 is a sacrosanct right which needs to be protected and duly enforced even in cases where stringent provisions have been made applicable by way of special legislation,” he observed, adding that in cases of conflict, stringent statutory provisions must defer to constitutional rights.
The court also cited the legal principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” underscoring that detention should be a deviation from the norm and only occur in accordance with lawful procedure. The court highlighted that the main accused in the case, as well as co-accused in similar circumstances, had already been granted bail, further justifying the bail for Tiwari and Kumar based on equality before the law and proportionality in legal treatment.
Senior Advocate Sanjay Jain, supported by a team from Legal Scriptures, represented Tiwari, while Senior Advocate Rebecca John appeared for Kumar. Counsel for the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) included Special Counsel Manish Jain and his team.
The court, however, imposed specific conditions on the bail, emphasising that while the accused deserved release, appropriate safeguards were essential to ensure adherence to the judicial process.
