India
SC frowns at Delhi court asking ED not to oppose bail if agency delays trial | India News – Times of India
The Supreme Court called the order “drastic.”
The court passed the order earlier in the day and granted bail to an accused in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case in which AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan is the prime suspect.
Within hours, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju brought the matter to the notice of the Supreme Court while it was hearing the bail plea of another accused in the same case.
Raju told the court that the presiding judge had said in open court that “he would teach ED a lesson”.
Taking note of the instruction given to the ED director not to oppose bail applications, a bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih said: “This is very drastic.”
The judges asked Raju to record the Delhi court’s order and said they would look into it. Since the money laundering case is pending in the Supreme Court, the bench said it would take note of the court’s order.
The Supreme Court has ruled in several judgments that postponement of the trial and prolonged detention of suspects can be grounds for granting bail in cases of money laundering. Accordingly, courts have started granting bail to suspects, which was earlier denied due to stringent bail conditions under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Earlier in the day, the court rejected the Enforcement Directorate’s contention that a lower court could not grant bail to an accused in the waqf board money laundering case on grounds of delay in trial and long detention. The court told the ED director to issue “appropriate instructions” to the special public prosecutors representing the agency. Special Judge Jitendra Singh directed ED not to oppose the bail plea if the delay in trial was due to the agency’s conduct.
The court then granted bail to Kausar Imam Siddiqui, stating that there was not even the slightest possibility of the trial being concluded anytime soon.
Siddiqui had sought bail, citing lengthy incarceration and also seeking parity with another accused who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court on November 13 on the same grounds.
The agency had opposed Siddiqui’s bail.
The court dismissed the ED’s plea saying that it was bound to follow the Apex Court’s verdict and it was its duty to protect and enforce constitutional rights.
The court said that the right to a speedy trial was one of the most important facets of Article 21, and it was within the exclusive domain of the courts. All courts, including the trial courts, are mandated to uphold, protect and enforce constitutional rights and constitutionalism as such, the lower court said. “In fact, the court has a duty to ensure that the constitutional rights of individuals are not violated,” the court said.
The court also noted that Siddiqui was in judicial custody since November 24, 2023.
Referring to the case of Manish Sisodia and several others, the court added that if a person accused under the PMLA has been in jail for too long without any possibility of the trial being concluded soon, he can be granted bail released even if the two conditions of Article 45 are met. (1) of the PMLA is not complied with.
Under Section 45 of the PMLA, bail can be granted to an accused in a money laundering case only if two conditions are met.
First, there must be prima facie satisfaction that the suspect did not commit the criminal offense. Secondly, he is not likely to commit a criminal offense while he is on bail.
The allegation against Siddiqui is that he acted as an intermediary on behalf of Amanatullah Khan in the purchase of property in Jamia Nagar using the proceeds of crime.
The judge added that the ED had had an opportunity to acknowledge his responsibility but had chosen to oppose the bail with full force and vehemence, which was nothing short of contrary to the mandate of the Supreme Court.
