What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that bail should be the default option, even in cases related to money laundering under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The recent judgment came after granting bail to Prem Prakash, a close associate of Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, who was embroiled in a high-profile money laundering case.
The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan, emphasized the paramount importance of safeguarding individual liberty. They clarified that any departure from this fundamental principle must be backed by well-established legal procedures. Despite the stringent bail conditions typically associated with PMLA cases, the court underscored that these conditions should not overshadow the core principle of granting bail.
ALSO READ: Jharkhand Police Sub-Inspectors detained, released – THE NEW INDIAN
Drawing parallels with the Manish Sisodia case, the court reiterated that bail should be the norm, even in PMLA cases. The twin-test criteria for bail—ensuring the accused’s presence during the trial and preventing interference with evidence—do not negate this fundamental stance. Additionally, the court ruled that confessions made to investigating officers in PMLA cases are generally inadmissible as evidence, in accordance with Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Considering the prolonged trial proceedings and the extensive list of witnesses, the court found no compelling evidence of guilt on the part of the appellant. Consequently, they granted bail to Prem Prakash, subject to a ₹5 lakh bail bond and other conditions stipulated by the trial court.
This ruling reinforces the balance between justice and individual rights, emphasizing that incarceration should be the exception rather than the rule.
