Hearing took place at a snail's pace but the accused rotted in jail, this will not work…Supreme Court told ED

The Supreme Court gave an important decision on Thursday. The top court said that the stringent bail rules in stringent laws like PMLA, UAPA and NDPS cannot be used as a 'weapon' to keep an accused in jail for a long time.

The court said that the condition of early disposal of the case should also be included in these laws. This is because long delays in concluding the trial and stringent bail conditions cannot go together.

Justice Abhay S. A bench of Justices Oka and Augustine George Masih said the government should take a fresh look at the laws where the onus is on the accused to prove his innocence.

The court was hearing the bail plea of ​​former Tamil Nadu minister Senthil Balaji. Balaji has been booked in a money laundering case related to the scam of taking money in exchange for jobs when he was the transport minister in the AIADMK government during 2011-2016.

The court also admitted that prima facie there was strong evidence against Senthil Balaji. Prima facie a case is made out against him. But the court granted him bail saying that Balaji had already spent 15 months in jail.

There are 2,000 accused and 500 witnesses in this case, so there is no possibility of the trial ending in the near future.

Examining the evidence against Balaji, the court said there was no reason to doubt the authenticity of the soft files at this stage. There is also prima facie evidence of cash amount of Rs 1.34 crore deposited in his bank account.

The court said, 'At this stage, the claim of the appellant in respect of credit of salary and agricultural income received as MLA cannot be accepted. This is because there is no prima facie evidence to show the existence of cash income and agricultural income of the appellant as MLA. Therefore, at this stage, it would be very difficult to say that there is no prima facie case against the appellant.'

Justice Oka and Justice Masih said the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot be allowed to use the stringent bail provision Section 45(1)(ii) as a tool to keep an accused in custody for a long time Is.

The court imposed strict conditions on Balaji and said that he will have to appear before the ED every Monday and Friday. Along with this, they will also have to be present in the courts hearing cases of corruption and money laundering.

The Supreme Court said, 'Such laws envisage speedy disposal of cases considering the seriousness of the crime. Furthermore, such laws provide for stringent conditions for the grant of bail. It is a well-established principle of our criminal jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail the exception. These stringent provisions relating to grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot be a tool which can be used to keep the accused in jail for unduly long periods of time without trial '

The Supreme Court said that keeping him in jail for a long time without trial is a violation of the rights of the accused. The court must intervene for his protection and no provision can take away the power of the constitutional courts to grant bail on the ground of violation of fundamental rights.

The Supreme Court said, 'When the trial of a complaint under PMLA is likely to extend beyond reasonable limits, the constitutional courts will have to consider exercising their powers to grant bail. This is because Section 45(1)(ii) does not empower the State to detain an accused for an unreasonably long period, especially when there is no possibility of the trial concluding within a reasonable time. ,