Supreme Court seeks balance between bail and the accused’s obligation to a timely trial
‘After charges are framed, no further proceedings would be filed and there should be full cooperation with the trial,’ the court observed in a bail application filed in a PMLA case
by Krishnadas Rajagopal · The HinduThe Supreme Court on Wednesday (November 27, 2024) proposed that accused persons seeking bail on the ground of delay in the commencement of trial in money laundering cases ought to give, in return, an undertaking that they would not seek adjournments, and cooperate with the trial in the future.
A Bench headed by Justice A.S. Oka said this would strike a “balance”. The Bench was hearing a bail application filed by an accused, Zeeshan Haider, in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case.
“This is the course we want to adopt,” Justice Oka observed orally, listing the case on December 5.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju said the suggestion from the court would indeed even the odds.
“In arguments of bail on the ground [that] trial would be delayed, an undertaking has to be given that, one, the day the case is fixed for framing charges, you should not seek adjournment. After charges are framed, no further proceedings would be filed and there should be full cooperation with the trial,” Justice Oka observed in the Zeeshan Haider case hearing.
Wednesday’s (November 27, 2024) development follows a string of recent judgments from the Supreme Court holding that prolonged delay in the commencement of trial was a ground for bail in PMLA cases. The court had clearly held in them that ‘bail is the rule, jail the exception’. The court had poked holes in the Directorate of Enforcement’s constant refrain that a crime committed under the PMLA was too serious for bail.
On August 9, the apex court, while granting bail to former Delhi Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia, had held that bail cannot be withheld as a form of punishment. Delay in the commencement of trial for no fault of the accused is a ground for bail, it had held.
“Keeping an accused incarcerated for an unlimited time in the hope of a speedy trial is a violation of his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the court had observed in the Sisodia judgment.
Published - November 27, 2024 05:10 pm IST