Recently, the Supreme Court directed the release of two appellants on bail in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The Court observed that prolonged custody without the framing of charges undermines the principles of justice and emphasised the necessity of fair conduct by Public Prosecutors in cases involving delays attributed to investigative agencies.
The appellants had been in custody for over a year in connection with a complaint filed under the PMLA. The complaint involved 29 witnesses and approximately 4,000 pages of documentary evidence. Despite the substantial passage of time, charges had not been framed. Both appellants submitted undertakings on oath, which were made part of the court's record.
Counsel for the appellants argued that the delay in framing charges effectively prolonged their detention without trial, violating their rights. They relied on the Supreme Court's precedent in V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, which provided grounds for bail in similar circumstances. The petitioners further submitted undertakings to abide by all bail conditions and cooperate with the trial process.
The Supreme Court noted that the appellants had been in custody for over a year and the trial was unlikely to commence soon as charges were yet to be framed. Referring to paragraphs 25 to 28 of the decision in V. Senthil Balaji, the Court held that the appellants were entitled to bail. It remarked, “Prolonged custody without trial and the framing of charges constitutes a procedural lapse that warrants relief to the appellants”.Addressing the observations made by the Special Court in its November 27, 2024 order, the Supreme Court clarified the role of Public Prosecutors, stating that, “A Public Prosecutor must act fairly and point out binding precedents to the court. While the Enforcement Directorate (ED) or its Director may provide case-specific instructions, they cannot dictate how a Public Prosecutor should perform as an officer of the court”.
The Court further observed that any suggestion requiring the Director of ED to issue blanket directions against opposing bail was untenable, clarifying that Public Prosecutors retain the discretion to oppose bail when the delay is not attributable to the ED.
The Top Court allowed the appeals and directed the Special Court to release the appellants on appropriate terms and conditions, including adherence to their undertakings. The Court also granted liberty to the ED to apply for the cancellation of bail if the trial is delayed due to any act or omission on the part of the appellants. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate Of Enforcement
Citation: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9374/2024 with Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9576/2024
Order Date: 09.12.2024
Coram: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Augustine George Masih
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Vikram Chaudhri (Sr. Adv.), Rajat Bhardwaj (AOR), Ankita M. Bhardwaj, Kaustubh Khanna, Saurav Kekroda, Arveen Sekhon, Rishi Sehgal, Muskan Khurana, Sudhir Naagar (AOR), Manish Baidwan, Arun Kumar Nagar, Ankit Sharma
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Suryaprakash V. Raju (A.S.G.), Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Arkaj Kumar, Vivek Gurnani, Sushil Raaja, Samrat Goswami, Animesh Upadhyay, Arvind Kumar Sharma (AOR), Aditi Singh, Anand Kirti, Deepika Gahlot
