LexV. SENTHIL BALAJI versus THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 393 : 2024 INSC 739 V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No. 4011 of 2024) 26 September 2024 [Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to grant of bail to former Tamil Nadu transport minister against whom complaint was filed for offence u/s.3 PMLA, which is punishable u/s.4 PMLA for his alleged involvement in the job racket scam. Headnotes† Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – ss.3, 4, 45(1) (iii) – Offence of money-laundering – Appellant-former Tamil Nadu transport minister’s alleged involvement in the job racket scam – Arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the Enforcement Case Information Report – Bail application in connection with the alleged offence u/s.3, which is punishable u/s.4 – Rejected by the Single Judge of the High Court – Challenge to: Held: Appellant has been incarcerated for more than 15 months in connection with the offence punishable u/s.4 – There are more than 2000 accused in the three scheduled offences, and the number of witnesses proposed to be examined exceeds 600 – Trial of the scheduled offences and, consequently, the PMLA offence is not likely to be completed in three to four years or even more – If the appellant’s detention is continued, it would amount to an infringement of his fundamental right u/Art.21 of speedy trial – Stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as s.45(1)(iii), cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time – At this stage, it would be very difficult to hold that there is no prima facie case against the appellant in the complaint u/s.44(1)(b) and material relied upon therein – Furthermore, when the trial of the complaint under PMLA is likely to prolong beyond * Author 394 [2024] 10 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports reasonable limits, the Constitutional Courts will have to consider exercising their powers to grant bail – s.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 – Reasonable time would depend on the provisions under which the accused is being tried and other factors – If the Constitutional Courts do not exercise their jurisdiction in such cases, rights of the undertrials u/Art.21 would be defeated – In a given case, if undue delay in the disposal of the trial can be substantially attributed to accused, the Constitutional Courts can always decline to exercise jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs – Considering the apprehension of the appellant tampering with the evidence, stringent conditions imposed – Appellant to be enlarged on bail till the final disposal of the case pending before the Principal Session Judge, on the condition that he would furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs.25,00,000/- with two sureties in the like amount; surrender passport; appear before the Enforcement Directorate, and not to directly or indirectly attempt to contact or communicate with the prosecution witnesses and victims – Constitution of India. [Paras 21, 25, 27, 29-31] Criminal trial – Expeditious disposal – Crimes under the statutes-PMLA, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: Held: Considering the gravity of the offences in such statutes, expeditious disposal of trials for the crimes under these statutes is contemplated – 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 – Bail is the rule, and jail is the exception – These stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as s.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. [Paras 24, 25] Case Law Cited Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1920; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [2021] 1 SCR 443 : (2021) 3 SCC 713 ; P. Dharamraj v. Shanmugam and Others [2022] 9 SCR 972 : (2022) 15 SCC 136; Y. Balaji v. Karthik [2024] 10 S.C.R. 395 V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director, Direct
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.