2018 (2) TMI 310 - SC - Money Laundering

Offence under PMLA - grant of bail - Held that - As in (Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India & Anr 2017 (11) TMI 1336 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA as directed to declare Section 45 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail, to be unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. All the matters before us in which bail has been denied, because of the presence of the twin conditions contained in Section 45, will now go back to the respective Courts which denied bail. All such orders are set aside, and the cases remanded to the respective Courts to be heard on merits, without application of the twin conditions contained in Section 45 of the 2002 Act. Considering that persons are languishing in jail and that personal liberty is involved, all these matters are to be taken up at the earliest by the respective Courts for fresh decision. The writ petitions and the appeals are disposed of accordingly In view of the aforesaid, the present matter is also liable to be remitted back for consideration in terms of the aforesaid.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to constitutionality of Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 regarding bail conditions.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by J. Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ., addressed the constitutional validity of Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pertaining to bail conditions. The Court declared that the provision imposing additional conditions for bail to be unconstitutional as it violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court set aside all orders where bail was denied due to these conditions and remanded the cases back to the respective Courts for fresh consideration without applying the twin conditions of Section 45. This decision aimed to expedite the process, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty and the need to promptly review cases where individuals were detained due to these conditions.

The judgment specifically highlighted the urgency in addressing cases where individuals were incarcerated due to the twin conditions of Section 45, stressing the importance of personal liberty and the need for a swift resolution. The Court directed all matters where bail was previously denied based on these conditions to be reconsidered without the application of the unconstitutional provisions. This directive aimed to ensure a fair and just process for individuals affected by the unconstitutional bail conditions, emphasizing the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

In light of the aforementioned ruling, the Court concluded that the present matter under consideration was also subject to the same principles and required to be sent back for review in accordance with the directions provided in the judgment. The appeal in question was disposed of accordingly, aligning with the broader decision to uphold constitutional principles and safeguard individual liberties in matters related to bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.