corporate law
The recent judgment by the Delhi High Court in Pankaj Kumar Tiwari vs. Enforcement Directorate marks a significant moment in the interpretation of bail provisions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Delivered by a Single Judge Bench led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri on October 24, 2024, the ruling asserts that the stringent criteria of Section 45 PMLA cannot be employed to prolong the detention of an accused indefinitely, especially when trial proceedings are delayed due to no fault of the accused.
The judgment revolves around two former officials of Bhushan Steel Limited (BSL), Pankaj Kumar Tiwari and another defendant, who were implicated in a significant money laundering case amounting to ₹46,000 crore. Having spent over nine months in custody, the applicants sought bail, arguing that the trial would likely take an unreasonable time given the complexity of the case, which involved multiple defendants, extensive documentation, and numerous witnesses.
Complexity of the Case: The court acknowledged the extensive evidence, totaling lakhs of pages, and the challenges posed in a trial involving a multitude of co-defendants.
Right to Liberty: The court emphasized that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a speedy trial. Jail should be an exception and not the norm.
Bail as a Rule: Reinforcing the principle that "bail is the rule and jail is the exception," the court contended that prolonged detention is impermissible without clear justification.
The bench underscored several critical points in its judgment:
Detention vs. Trial Duration: The court noted that the delay in the trial was not attributable to the accused. Therefore, using Section 45 PMLA to justify their prolonged custody was impermissible.
Constitutional Mandate: The judgment reiterated that it is the duty of Constitutional Courts to uphold individual liberty and adhere to the constitutional provision of Article 21, especially when trials are foreseeable to be protracted.
Right to Speedy Trial: Citing prior rulings, the court maintained that the right to a speedy trial is paramount, and thus, lengthy incarceration without trial violates fundamental rights.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court granted bail to both applicants after weighing the cumulative impact of the aforementioned factors. The court issued specific conditions for their release, including:
This judgment significantly impacts future bail applications under the PMLA, emphasizing that procedural delays and lack of trial advancement must be critically evaluated when deciding on bail. The ruling serves as a reminder of the courts' responsibility to protect individual rights against arbitrary imprisonment, reiterating that the justice system should not punish individuals prior to a finding of guilt.
The court's decision reflects ongoing discussions surrounding the need for reform in India's legal framework regarding arrests and detentions, raising important questions about the balance between law enforcement interests and fundamental rights.