New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday minced no words in criticising the Centre and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for making arguments contrary to the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to oppose bail petitions of the accused.
The bench observed, “Someday we have to give signals that if such an approach is taken, the signal has to be given” while granting bail to a woman accused in a money laundering case.
The matter came up before a bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan. The bench, expressing its discontent, said that such a stance by the government showed its belief that a person who is arrested under the PMLA has to be denied bail under any circumstance. The bench orally observed that it is clear that the intention on the part of the government to see that by hook or crook, bail is denied and therefore such submissions are made.
The bench said if the counsel, representing the Centre, does not know the basic provisions of law, why should they appear, and added, "If Union of India is to make submission contrary to its own statute...there is no question of communication gap".
The bench made these observations disagreeing with the contention of the ED that the proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA will not apply to a woman. The bench said, “We will not tolerate such conduct on the part of the Union of India to make submissions expressly contrary to statute."
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta contended before the bench that the proviso to Section 45 does apply to women in PMLA cases. Mehta submitted that the earlier argument made by an additional solicitor general (ASG) during the previous hearing was due to a communication gap. Mehta offered an apology at the earlier submission made on behalf of the ED.
In December, last year, the top court had pulled up an ASG who had argued that the stringent bail conditions, Section 45 PMLA, are applicable to a woman as well. The apex court had told the government counsel that the proviso to Section 45 clearly exempted women from the twin conditions for bail.
During the hearing today, the bench told Mehta that there is no question of miscommunication and that the court will not appreciate such submissions by the Union of India. The apex court was informed that the accused woman was the kingpin of criminal activities and she is not entitled to bail on the ground of being a woman.
The bench declined to consider Mehta's request for adjourning the case to Friday by saying that the reply to the bail plea was not on record. The bench said if people who appear for the Union of India do not know basic provisions of law why should they appear in the matter? And to file counter at the 11th hour?
Justice Oka said if government counsel who appear before the court are to proceed on the footing that the court is not aware of basic provisions and make such admissions, what would the court do?
After hearing submissions, the apex court said there was no possibility of a trial concluding in the near future and granted bail to the woman. The bench noted that the petitioner has been incarcerated since November 2023. Concluding the hearing, Justice Oka observed, "Someday we have to give signals that if such approach is taken...signal has to be given".
The top court passed the order on a bail plea moved by an accused Shashi Bala in a money laundering case. It has been alleged that Bala aided the Shine City Group of Companies in laundering proceeds of crime.
In November 2023, the ED arrested a woman in connection with a money laundering probe against a Lucknow-based company for allegedly duping investors to the tune of Rs 800-1,000 crore. It was alleged that Shashi Bala was actively assisting Rasheed Naseem, the main accused in the Shine City fraud.
