NEW DELHI: Taking strong exception to ED making “inadvertent” submissions contrary to the provisions of PMLA on grant of bail to minors, women or sick people in money laundering cases, Supreme Court on Wednesday said the agency intended to keep accused in jail and declared that it would not tolerate such “frivolous submissions”.
SG Tushar Mehta admitted that a law officer had erred in making the submission, although he stressed that leniency should not be invoked if the allegations were serious.
Will not tolerate submission which is contrary to law: SC
The controversy arose after a law officer, appearing for the agency, told SC on the last date of hearing on Dec 19 that even if a person was under the age of 16, or was a woman, or was a sick or infirm person, the stringent conditions under clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of Section 45 of PMLA would still apply to them. He was opposing the bail plea of one Shashi Balaha, who has been accused of laundering money for Shine City group of companies and possessed many immovable properties despite being a govt teacher.
A proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 45 of PMLA says that a person falling under the above categories may be released on bail if the special court so directs.
At the outset of the hearing, the bench said the submission made on Dec 19 was “utterly frivolous”. “We will not tolerate such submission which is contrary to law,” the bench said.
Trying to control the damage, the solicitor general said it was an inadvertent mistake which had happened due to a communication gap. He also apologised for it. But the bench pressed on and said the law officer’s argument reflected govt’s intent to keep PMLA accused in jail.
“If lawyers who appear for the Union of India do not know basic provisions of law, then why should they appear in the matter? There is no question of communication gap. We will not tolerate such conduct on the part of Union of India to make submissions expressly contrary to the statute,” the bench said. Taking note that she had been in custody for more than a year and there was no possibility of completion of trial in the near future, the bench directed that she be released on bail on conditions fixed by the trial court. It also directed her to deposit her passport.
