Requirement Of Expeditious Trial Must Be Read Into Special Statutes Imposing Stringent Bail Provisions : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court while granting bail to former Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji, held that higher thresholds for granting bail in stringent penal statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act cannot be a tool to keep an accused incarcerated without trial.

A bench on Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized the incompatibility of stringent bail provisions with prolonged delays in trial.

“The expeditious disposal of the trial is also warranted considering the higher threshold set for the grant of bail. Hence, the requirement of expeditious disposal of cases must be read into these statutes. Inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together. It is a well settled principle of our criminal jurisprudence that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception.” These stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time”, the Court held.

The Supreme Court cited the judgment in Union of India v. KA Najeeb, emphasizing that constitutional courts have the power to grant bail if it is evident that the trial will not be completed within a reasonable time. In such cases, the prolonged incarceration of an undertrial violates the fundamental right to liberty and the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court observed.

The Court observed, “When the trial of the complaint under PMLA is likely to prolong beyond reasonable limits, the Constitutional Courts will have to consider exercising their powers to grant bail. The reason is that Section 45(1)(ii) does not confer power on the State to detain an accused for an unreasonably long time, especially when there is no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time…The Constitutional Courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45(1)(ii) to become instruments in the hands of the ED to continue incarceration for a long time when there is no possibility of a trial of the scheduled offence and the PMLA offence concluding within a reasonable time. If the Constitutional Courts do not exercise their jurisdiction in such cases, the rights of the undertrials under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will be defeated.” 

The Court added, “Some day, the courts, especially the Constitutional Courts, will have to take a call on a peculiar situation that arises in our justice delivery system.”

Balaji has been incarcerated for more than 15 months in connection with the PMLA case. The Court noted that, under Section 4 of the PMLA, the minimum sentence for money laundering is three years, which can extend to seven years.

The Court observed that the scheduled offences against Balaji involve over 2,000 accused and more than 600 witnesses. Such a high number of accused and witnesses significantly complicated the trial process, with the framing of charges and hearing of arguments being expected to take several months, the Court observed.

The Court explained that the framing of charges alone would require hearing the arguments of many advocates representing the large number of accused. Moreover, after charges are framed, the Court would have to examine over 600 witnesses, rely on documentary and electronic evidence, and consider statements under Section 313 of the CrPC. As a result, the trial could be delayed for several years, the Court opined. Even under ideal conditions, the Court found it unlikely that the trial would be concluded within three to four years.

For the PMLA charges, the Court noted that no charges had been framed at the time of the judgment.

The Court explained that for a money laundering charge under Section 3 of the PMLA to proceed, the existence of "proceeds of crime" (defined in Section 2(u) of the PMLA) is a necessary condition.

Therefore, the trial of money laundering charges under the PMLA could not be concluded until the scheduled offences were proven in a separate trial, the Court held.

“Hence, the existence of a scheduled offence is sine qua non for alleging the existence of proceeds of crime...The existence of proceeds of crime at the time of the trial of the offence under Section 3 of PMLA can be proved only if the scheduled offence is established in the prosecution of the scheduled offence. Therefore, even if the trial of the case under the PMLA proceeds, it cannot be finally decided unless the trial of scheduled offences concludes”, the Court held.

Considering the unlikelihood of early completion of trial and the long incarceration, the Court chose to grant him bail, despite finding that there is a prima facie case against him.

The Court imposed several stringent conditions for bail to address concerns raised by the ED regarding witness tampering and potential interference by Balaji. These conditions include:

• Furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 25 lakhs with two sureties of the same amount.
• Regular attendance at the office of the Deputy Director of the Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai, every Monday and Friday, as well as regular appearance before the investigating officers of the scheduled offences.
• Surrendering his passport to the Special Court under the PMLA in Chennai.
• Refraining from any attempt to contact prosecution witnesses or victims of the scheduled offences.
• Cooperating with the trial court for the swift disposal of cases and not seeking adjournments on frivolous grounds.

Case no. – SLP (Crl) No. 3986/2024

Case Title – V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 750

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment