Expeditious disposal of trial warranted in cases filed under bail-restrictive Prevention of Money Laundering Act, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act: Supreme Court

Constitutional courts can grant bail in cases of detention for unreasonably long periods without trial, says the court

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned the tables on Central agencies by holding that laws which restrict bail like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) warrant expeditious completion of trial.

The apex court observed that graver the offence and more restrictive the chances of bail under a statute, greater the need for speedy trial.

“Inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together… The expeditious disposal of the trial is warranted considering the higher threshold set for the grant of bail in these statutes. Hence, the requirement of expeditious disposal of cases must be read into these statutes,” the Supreme Court interpreted in a judgment granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthilbalaji in a PMLA case.

The “rigours” of bail provisions of PMLA and UAPA would “melt away” if there was no likelihood for the completion of the trial in a reasonable time and if the undertrial prisoner had already suffered incarceration for a substantial part of the prescribed sentence under the law, a Bench headed by Justice AS Oka, who authored the judgment, observed.

The judgment is the latest in a recent string of verdicts from the apex court which nip at the two draconian laws. The past years have witnessed Central agencies employ UAPA and PMLA to detain Ministers, activists, lawyers, students leaders and journalists for months, even years together, as undertrial prisoners.

“Provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45 of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time… Section 45 does not confer power on the state to detain an accused for an unreasonably long time,” the Supreme Court held.

Justice Oka wrote that “some day” the constitutional courts of the country have to sit up and decide whether the state should pay compensation to persons who spent years behind bars as an undertrial only to eventually get a “clean acquittal”.

The court said ‘clean acquittal’ meant accused persons who proved their innocence on sheer evidence, and not through witnesses turning hostile or the benefit of a botched-up investigation.

Justice Oka said a clean acquittal at the end of a prolonged term in jail as an undertrial was a “peculiar situation” of India’s justice delivery system.

“In such cases of clean acquittal, crucial years in the life of the accused are lost. In a given case, it may amount to violation of rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution which may give rise to a claim for compensation,” Justice Oka highlighted.

Published - September 26, 2024 09:58 pm IST