SC grants bail to co-accused in excise policy scam, rejects Section 45 money laundering statutory bar

The SC granted bail to the co-accused in the Delhi Excise policy scam case, rejecting the statutory bar under Section 45 of the money laundering Act. The Court held that Article 21 fundamental rights cannot be arbitrarily subjugated to statutory restrictions, emphasizing that bail remains the rule and jail the exception even in special statutes. Given the prolonged custody period with little possibility of trial completion and maximum sentence of only 7 years for money laundering, the petitioner was released on bail of Rs. 10 lakh with conditions prohibiting evidence tampering or witness influence.

---

---

Issues:
Bail application of a co-accused in Delhi Excise policy scam challenging the rejection of bail by the Delhi High Court.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard the bail plea of the petitioner, a co-accused in the Delhi Excise policy scam. The petitioner was arrested and had been in custody for about 22 months, facing charges of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner sought bail citing the maximum punishment of 7 years upon conviction and referred to the bail granted to other co-accused for parity. The ASG opposed bail, citing the threshold bar under Section 45 of the Act and distinguishing a case where bail was granted to a female co-accused based on a proviso to Section 45(1) of the Act.

The Court considered the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution as sacrosanct, emphasizing that prolonged incarceration of an under-trial cannot be a mode of punishment. The Court noted discrepancies in the statements of an approver implicating the accused and the delay in trial commencement. The prosecution had filed multiple complaints and supplementary complaints, involving a large number of accused and extensive documentation, indicating a continuing investigation for over 2 years.

The ASG relied on a previous court decision to argue for stringent bail conditions under Section 45 of the Act. However, the Court referred to its past judgments relaxing the rigours of Section 45 in cases of prolonged custody without trial conclusion. The Court reiterated the right to an expeditious trial, emphasizing that bail should not be withheld as a form of punishment, as bail is the rule and its refusal is the exception. The Court highlighted that fundamental rights under Article 21 cannot be arbitrarily subjugated to statutory bars.

Considering the petitioner's prolonged incarceration and the unlikelihood of trial conclusion in the near future, the Court granted bail to the petitioner on specified terms, including furnishing bail bonds, non-tampering with evidence, depositing the passport, and cooperating with the trial process. The Court clarified that the bail order should not impact the trial's merits. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of, and pending applications were closed.

---