Prem Prakash vs Union Of India 2024 INSC 637- Ss 45, 50 PMLA – Bail

PMLA 2002; Section 50– When a person is in judicial custody/custody in another case investigated by the same Investigating Agency, whether the statements recordeed for a new case in which his arrest is not yet shown, and which are claimed to contain incriminating material against the maker, would be admissible under Section 50? When an accused is in custody under PMLA irrespective of the case for which he is under custody, any statement under Section 50 PMLA to the same Investigating Agency is inadmissible against the maker. The reason being that the person in custody pursuant to the proceeding investigated by the same Investigating Agency is not a person who can be considered as one operating with a free mind. It will be extremely unsafe to render such statements admissible against the maker, as such a course of action would be contrary to all canons of fair play and justice. (Para

PMLA 2002; Section 45- Even under PMLA the governing principle is that “Bail is the Rule and Jail is the Exception”- All that Section 45 of PMLA mentions is that certain conditions are to be satisfied. The principle that, “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” is only a paraphrasing of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Liberty of the individual is always a Rule and deprivation is the exception. Deprivation can only be by the procedure established by law, which has to be a valid and reasonable procedure. Section 45 of PMLA by imposing twin conditions does not re-write this principle to mean that deprivation is the norm and liberty is the exception. -All that is required is that in cases where bail is subject to the satisfaction of twin conditions, those conditions must be satisfied- Article 21 being a higher constitutional 12 right, statutory provisions should align themselves to the said higher constitutional edict. (Para 11-12) – Court while dealing with the application for grant of bail in PMLA need not delve deep into the merits of the case and only a view of the Court based on the available material available on record is required. It held that the Court is only required to place its view based on probability on the basis of reasonable material collected during investigation. The words used in Section 45 are “reasonable grounds for believing” which means that the Court has to see only if there is a genuine case against the accused and the prosecution is not required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 13) In view of the importance of the three basic foundational facts that the prosecution needs to establish, the counter/response to the bail application in the original Court is very significant in PMLA bail matters. In cases where the Public Prosecutor takes a considered decision to oppose the bail application, the counter affidavit of the Investigating Agency should make out a cogent case as to how the three foundational facts set out hereinabove are prima facie established in the given case to help the Court at the bail application stage to arrive at a conclusion within the framework laid down in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. It is only thereafter the presumption under Section 24 would arise and the burden would shift on the accused. The counter to the bail application should specifically crystallize albeit briefly the material sought to be relied upon to establish prima facie the three foundational facts. It is after the foundational facts are set out that the accused will assume the burden to convince the court within the parameters of the enquiry at the Section 45 stage that for the reasons adduced by him there are reasonable grounds to believing that he is not guilty of such offence. (Para 15)

Read Judgment

Related Posts

75 thoughts on “Prem Prakash vs Union Of India 2024 INSC 637- Ss 45, 50 PMLA – Bail”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *