SC says bail permissible in PMLA if accused is in custody without a trial for a long period

A Supreme Court bench on Monday responded to the argument which said twin conditions must be followed while granting bail in PMLA cases was inconsistent with earlier rulings, reported Amit Anand Choudhary of TOI.

Another bench had passed this verdict last week.

The bench said that there was no conflict as the issues of delay in trial and prolonged incarceration were not before the first bench that was dealing with an accused who had been in jail for seven months.


The apex court, in various rulings involving AAP leaders Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia, and DMK's V Senthil Balaji, ruled that an accused who has been in custody for a long time could be granted bail despite stringent twin conditions in PMLA if there was no chance of trial being concluded in the near future.

Based on this, the court granted relief to the three Accordingly, the court granted relief to Kejriwal, Sisodia and Balaji.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Prasanna B Varale, while quashing bail to the accused last Thursday, held that bail should be given only when the twin conditions under PMLA were fulfilled and that courts should refrain from taking a casual or cursory approach while granting such relief as the offence of money laundering posed serious threat not only to the financial systems of the country but also to its integrity and sovereignty and could not be regarded as an ordinary crime.

Section 45 of PMLA sets two conditions for grant of bail to any person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years.

The two conditions are include the prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application for bail; and the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused person is not guilty of such offence and that he is not liable to commit any offence while on bail.

“As well settled, these two conditions are mandatory in nature and they need to be complied with before the accused person is released on bail,” the bench of Justices Trivedi and Varale had said.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan on Monday heard the arguments challenging the previous verdict.

Senior advocates Sidharth Luthra and M R Shamshad said different benches of the apex court took different approaches which was creating confusion. They argued that courts should speak in one voice and added that SC’s earlier verdicts were not brought to the bench’s notice which passed the verdict quashing bail.

Solicitor general Tushar Mehta told the bench that there was no inconsistency as the accused in the case in question had spent just seven months and 18 days in custody. This could not be deemed to be incarceration, he said.

Mehta added that the accused was not in custody for more than a year and that was why the bench did not rely on the SC’s verdict in the Senthil Balaji and other cases.

The bench, after hearing the arguments, perused last week’s verdict and clarified that SC’s ruling in cases, including Balaji and Kejriwal, was not applicable and that was most likely the reason why it was not relied upon.