NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday disapproved the order passed by a court in Delhi asked the director of the Enforcement Directorate to instruct them not to oppose the bail plea of ​​the accused in cases where the trial is pending due to the agency and asked the ED to record the message.
The apex court called the order “drastic”.
The trial court passed the order earlier in the day while granting bail to the accused in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case in which AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan is the main accused.
Within hours, additional solicitor general SV Raju took the matter to the apex court while hearing bail pleas of other accused in the same case.
Raju told the bench that the presiding judge had said in open court that “he will teach a lesson to ED”.
Taking note of the direction given to the ED director not to oppose the bail plea, a bench of justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih said, “This is drastic.”
The judge asked Raju to note down the Delhi court’s order and said he would look into it. As the money laundering case is pending in the Supreme Court, the bench said it will take cognizance of the court’s order.
The Supreme Court has held various decisions that delay in trial and prolonged detention of the accused can be grounds for granting bail in money laundering cases. Therefore, the court has started granting bail to the accused who was earlier denied due to strict bail requirements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Earlier, the court rejected the Enforcement Directorate’s contention that the lower court could not grant bail to the accused in the waqf board money laundering case due to delays in the trial and lengthy jail terms. The court told the ED director to issue “appropriate instructions” to the special public prosecutor representing the agency. Special judge Jitendra Singh directed the ED not to fight the bail plea due to the adjournment of the court due to the action of the agency.
The court then granted bail to Kausar Imam Siddiqui, stating that there was not the remotest possibility that the trial would end.
Siddiqui has moved for bail as he has been in jail for a long time and also sought parity with the other accused who got bail on the same grounds from the high court on Nov 13.
The agency opposed bail for Siddiqui.
Rejecting the ED’s plea, the trial court said it had to follow the apex court’s decision and its duty to protect and enforce constitutional rights.
The court said that the right to a speedy trial is one of the most important aspects of Article 21, and is in the exclusive domain of the trial court. All courts, including courts, are required to uphold, protect and enforce constitutional rights and constitutionalism, the lower court said. “In fact, the duty is given to the courts to see that the constitutional rights of individuals are not violated,” the court said.
The court also noted that Siddiqui is in judicial custody from Nov 24, 2023.
Referring to the case of Manish Sisodia and various others, the court added that if a person accused under PMLA is imprisoned for a long time without the possibility of the trial being completed, he can be released on bail, even if the twin conditions of section 45. (1) of PMLA are not met.
According to Section 45 of the PMLA, bail can be granted to an accused in a money laundering case only if the twin conditions are satisfied.
First, there must be prima facie satisfaction that the accused did not commit the offence. Second, that he will not commit an offense upon release.
The allegation against Siddiqui is that he acted as an intermediary on behalf of Amanatullah Khan to buy a property in Jamia Nagar where the proceeds of the crime were used.
The judge added that the ED had an opportunity to admit its responsibility but had chosen to fight the bail with passion and fervor, which was not only a violation of the Supreme Court’s mandate.
