Summary
The Court granted bail to the appellant in the CBI and Enforcement Directorate cases arising from the Delhi excise policy. Investigation was complete, trial with about 493 witnesses could not end soon, and the High Court had wrongly confined the proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA to a 'vulnerable woman', misreading Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement.
Issues
- Whether the appellant, in custody for five months after the chargesheet and the prosecution complaint had been filed, should be released on bail given the likely length of the trial.
- Whether the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA for women is available only to a 'vulnerable woman', and whether it could be denied because the appellant was highly educated and a legislator.
- Whether a court denying the special treatment that a statute provides for a class of accused must give specific reasons.
Provisions considered
- Section 45(1), first proviso, Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002Read as allowing a woman, among other listed categories, to be released on bail without satisfying the twin conditions of Section 45. The benefit is not automatic and depends on the facts, but its denial requires specific reasons; the High Court erred in holding it applies only to a vulnerable woman and in refusing it because the appellant was educated and politically accomplished. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 27, 28)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaFollowing Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, the Court reiterated that liberty under Article 21 is superior to statutory restrictions and that prolonged pre-trial incarceration should not become punishment without trial. (¶¶ 12, 13)
Held
- Courts should avoid elaborate discussion of the merits when deciding a bail application, since observations may prejudice either party at trial; the Court accordingly did not discuss the merits. (¶¶ 3, 4, 30)
- As the chargesheet in the CBI case and the complaint in the ED case had been filed, the appellant's custody was no longer needed for investigation; with about 493 witnesses and some 50,000 pages of documents, the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, and, as held in Manish Sisodia, prolonged incarceration should not become punishment without trial. Bail is the rule and refusal the exception. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
- The proviso to Section 45(1) PMLA permits a woman to be released on bail without the twin requirements of Section 45. A woman is not automatically entitled to it and it depends on the facts of each case, but where a statute gives special treatment to a category of accused, a court denying it must record specific reasons. (¶¶ 14, 16, 17)
- Saumya Chaurasia only observed that courts should be sensitive to persons of tender age and women who are likely to be more vulnerable and may be misused by unscrupulous elements. It does not limit the proviso to a 'vulnerable woman' or exclude a woman because she is highly educated, sophisticated or a legislator. The High Court misapplied that decision and misdirected itself in denying the benefit. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- The Court noted the inconsistency in the High Court praising the appellant's qualifications and accomplishments while using them to deny her the proviso, when the prosecution routinely argues that persons of special status should be treated like any other accused. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court order of 01.07.2024 set aside. Appellant directed to be released on bail in the ED complaint case and the CBI case on bonds of Rs. 10,00,000 in each, on conditions that she not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, deposit her passport with the trial court, and regularly attend and cooperate with the trial. Observations not to prejudice the trial.