Beyond ‘seriousness’ of offence, factors such as trial delay and lengthy prison sentence must be considered: Supreme Court

The August 9 judgment is the result of a series of recent decisions that have challenged a rigid interpretation of Section 45 of the PMLA. File | Photo credit: The Hindu

The Supreme Court’s judgment on granting bail to Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia has asked courts to shed their blinkers, look beyond the “gravity” of economic offences and pay attention to factors such as delayed trials and prolonged jail terms spent in undertrials while deciding bail applications in money laundering cases.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan held that the right to speedy trial was a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also amplified the cause of fair trial under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). It held that an accused cannot be denied access to documents that could absolve him. Such documents or statements cannot simply be categorised as ‘unreliable documents’ and withheld from the accused.

The August 9 judgment is the result of a series of recent decisions that have challenged a rigid interpretation of Section 45 of the PMLA. This provision sets out conditions for granting bail. These conditions are strict. In fact, they present such high hurdles for the accused, who would find himself behind bars, that bail would be almost impossible.

This provision allowed the public prosecutor to oppose the application for bail. If the prosecutor opposed bail, the court could still grant it, but only if it was satisfied that there were “reasonable grounds” for believing that the accused was not guilty and, again, that he was not “likely” to commit an offence while on bail.

Last October, a Supreme Court bench headed by Justice Sanjiv Khanna held that the delay in trial coupled with long-term incarceration should be considered as part of sections 439 and 45 of the PMLA. The court denied Mr Sisodia interim bail but laid the groundwork for the August 9, 2024, judgment.

In his Vijay Madan Lal Choudhary In its judgment, the court said that the bail conditions under Section 45 must be interpreted reasonably. “The provision does not require that for granting bail, the court must come to an affirmative conclusion that an accused has not committed an offence under the PMLA… the legislative intention cannot be construed as requiring the court to examine the matter in a detailed and extensive manner in order to decide on the guilt of an accused or his right to acquittal,” Justice Gavai quoted extensively in the judgment.

Justice Gavai referred to how the Supreme Court had dismissed objections raised by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and granted bail to former Finance Minister P. Chidambaram after 49 days in custody.

“Even if the charge is for a serious economic offence, it is not a rule that bail should be refused in all cases,” the Supreme Court ruled.