SC Reiterates Bail as the Rule, Jail as the Exception

SC Reiterates Bail as the Rule, Jail as the Exception

The Supreme Court of India has once again underscored the principle that bail should be the rule, and jail the exception. This reiteration came in a recent ruling where the apex court granted bail to an accused, Prem Prakash, in a money laundering case. The court emphasized the importance of not using statements given by an accused under custody as admissible evidence, especially when such statements are made under duress or coercion. 

Inadmissibility of Statements Under PMLA Custody

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan ruled that any statement made by an accused under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) while in custody is inadmissible. The court stressed that an accused in custody cannot be considered to be acting with a free mind, and any statement made under such circumstances could be unsafe and unjust to be used against them. This ruling came in the context of Prem Prakash, who had been in custody for a different Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and was accused of fraudulently acquiring land.

Case Background: Prem Prakash's Bail

Prem Prakash had been in custody since August 2022 under a different ECIR when he was taken into custody again by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on August 11, 2023, for a separate money laundering case. The Jharkhand High Court had earlier dismissed his bail application on March 22, 2024. However, the Supreme Court overturned this decision, ruling that using a statement made under custody in a separate case would be a travesty of justice.

Fundamental Right to Liberty

In another landmark ruling, the Supreme Court granted bail to BRS leader K. Kavitha, emphasizing the superiority of the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution over statutory restrictions. The court reiterated that prolonged incarceration before a person is found guilty should not be allowed to become a punishment in itself. 

Proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA

The Supreme Court also addressed the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA, which entitles women to special consideration when applying for bail. The court criticized the Delhi High Court for denying this benefit to K. Kavitha, stating that the High Court had misinterpreted the law. The apex court clarified that the benefit of the proviso is not limited to vulnerable women but should be extended to all women, irrespective of their social or educational status.

The Court’s Caution on Educated and Well-Placed Women

The Supreme Court also cautioned that educated and well-placed women, who may inadvertently engage in illegal activities, should be treated with judicial prudence. The court emphasized the need for sensitivity and sympathy towards women and other vulnerable groups who might be misused or made scapegoats in criminal activities.

Judicial Discretion and Prudence

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's rulings highlight the importance of judicial discretion and prudence, especially when dealing with cases involving prolonged incarceration, the use of statements made under custody, and the rights of vulnerable groups. The court's emphasis on bail as the rule and jail as the exception serves as a reminder of the fundamental principles of justice and liberty enshrined in the Indian Constitution.