In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has addressed concerns about bail denials in money laundering cases. The court made a strong statement while granting bail to Prem Prakash, who is reportedly an aide to Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren. This decision is notable because it highlights a crucial principle: bail should generally be the rule, and jail should be the exception.
The Supreme Court emphasized that any incriminating statements made by an accused while in custody will not be used as evidence in court. This decision follows a similar ruling where Bharat Rashtra Samithi leader K Kavitha was granted bail. Kavitha had been arrested earlier this year in a case connected to Delhi’s now-abandoned liquor policy. The court’s decision also echoes a recent ruling in which Aam Aadmi Party leader Manish Sisodia was granted bail in a separate money laundering case.
Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan, who were on the bench for today’s judgment, referred to the case of Manish Sisodia to reinforce their point. They stressed that under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the general rule is to grant bail unless there are clear reasons to deny it. The judges highlighted that bail conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA require the court to be satisfied that the accused has not committed the offense and is unlikely to commit another while on bail.
The court clarified that the principle of personal liberty should be upheld unless there is a strong reason to deviate from it. The judgment pointed out that the test for bail under the PMLA does not override this fundamental principle. The court’s ruling underlined that any incriminating statements made by an accused while in custody should not be admissible in court, as it would be unfair and contrary to justice.
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that the prosecution must present a prima facie case and clearly establish the grounds for bail denial. The court found that Prem Prakash did not appear to be prima facie guilty of the offenses and was unlikely to tamper with evidence. As a result, the court deemed him eligible for bail, with the observation that this decision is limited to the bail context and should not affect the ongoing trial.
This latest ruling follows the court’s previous remarks about fairness in prosecution. Just a day before, the court had questioned whether central agencies were fair in their approach, implying that they should not selectively target individuals. The bench expressed frustration with the current state of affairs, stressing that justice requires fairness and transparency in legal proceedings.
Overall, the Supreme Court’s rulings in these cases reinforce the idea that bail should be the standard approach, and any evidence obtained under questionable circumstances should not be used to determine a person’s guilt or innocence.
Reference