New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said that it will be “very difficult to hold” that there is no prima facie case of money laundering against DMK leader and former Tamil Nadu Minister V. Senthil Balaji.
A bench headed by Justice Abhay S. Oka refused to accept the contention that the deposit of Rs.1.34 crore cash amount in his bank account was remuneration received as MLA and agriculture income.
The Bench, also comprising A.G. Masih, said, “It will be very difficult to hold that there is no prima facie case against the appellant (Balaji)” in the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
However, the apex court directed the DMK leader to be enlarged on bail, considering that he has been incarcerated for more than 15 months, when the maximum sentence for alleged offences may extend up to 7 years.
It noted that in three scheduled offences, there are more than 2,000 accused and the number of witnesses proposed to be examined exceeds 600.
The apex court said that “even in ideal conditions, the possibility of the trial of scheduled offences concluding even within a reasonable time of three to four years appears to be completely ruled out.”
“Even if the trial of the case under the PMLA proceeds, it cannot be finally decided unless the trial of scheduled offences concludes. In the facts of the case, there is no possibility of the trial of the scheduled offences commencing in the near future. Therefore, we see no possibility of both trials concluding within a few years,” it added.
In its judgement, the Supreme Court said that when PMLA lays down a higher threshold for the grant of bail, an expeditious disposal of the trial is also warranted.
“Inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together. 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,” it said.
The Supreme Court said that 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.
“What a reasonable time is will depend on the provisions under which the accused is being tried and other factors. One of the most relevant factors is the duration of the minimum and maximum sentence for the offence,” it said, noting that under statutes like PMLA, the minimum sentence is three years, and the maximum is seven years.
“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,” added the top court.
Under Section 45 of the PMLA, twin tests must be met to obtain bail. First, the court should be convinced that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence. Second, the court should be convinced that the accused seeking bail is not likely to commit any offence while out on bail.(IANS)
Also Read: India Overtakes Japan to Become 3rd Most Powerful Nation in Asia
Also watch: