17 February 2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Trial >> Criminal Law   |   Prevention Of Money Laundering Act >> Criminal Law  

In Udhaw Singh Vs Enforcement Directorate, the Supreme Court of India granted bail to the appellant arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), citing the appellant's prolonged detention and the significant delay in the trial proceedings. This decision underscores the court's commitment to upholding the fundamental right to a speedy trial, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The appellant, who had been incarcerated for one year and two months, faced charges under Section 3 of the PMLA. With a staggering 225 witnesses cited and only one examined, the court concluded that the trial was unlikely to conclude within a reasonable timeframe.

The ruling heavily relied on the precedent set in V.Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, where the Supreme Court emphasized the need for constitutional courts to intervene when trials under statutes like the PMLA are unduly prolonged. The court reiterated that provisions like Section 45(1)(ii) of the PMLA should not be used to justify indefinite detention, especially when there is no prospect of a timely trial.

In V.Senthil Balaji, the court highlighted that when trials for offenses with minimum sentences, such as those under the PMLA, are expected to extend beyond reasonable limits, constitutional courts must exercise their power to grant bail. The court also noted that the duration of minimum and maximum sentences, stringent bail conditions, and any statutory trial completion deadlines are crucial factors to consider.

The Supreme Court, in the present case, acknowledged the Solicitor General's fair concession that the V.Senthil Balaji precedent was applicable. The court also addressed a conflicting judgment in Union of India through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad, clarifying that the circumstances in that case were significantly different, as the accused had been detained for less than seven months and there was no finding of undue trial delay.

The court emphasized that prolonged detention, especially when the trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable period, infringes upon an individual's fundamental right to a speedy trial. The court directed the appellant to be produced before the Special Court within a week, instructing the Special Court to release the appellant on bail with appropriate terms and conditions, including regular court attendance, cooperation with the trial, and surrender of passport.

This decision serves as a significant reminder of the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional rights and ensuring that legal processes are conducted within reasonable timeframes, preventing undue hardship on undertrial prisoners.

  PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT, 2002