[ad_1] New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday said that those who have spent a year in jail in a money laundering case and against whom charges have not yet been framed, can be released on bail as per the judgment given in the Senthil Balaji case. The Supreme Court has relaxed the stringent bail provisions of PMLA, saying that delay in trial and long imprisonment can be grounds for granting bail. Earlier, the Supreme Court had not decided for how long a person arrested under PMLA can be kept in custody. The one-year time limit will help courts bring uniformity in deciding bail petitions.Comment given in which case?This clarification came during the hearing on the bail plea of Chhattisgarh Excise case accused Arun Pati Tripathi. Tripathi was arrested by ED on August 8 last year. Since Tripathi has spent only about five months in custody, the court expressed hesitation in granting bail. Tripathi's lawyers Meenakshi Arora and Mohit D Ram argued that he/she had actually spent 18 months in jail as the ED had detained him/her in August and before that he/she was in jail for another crime. However, the bench said bail could not be granted on this ground and agreed to consider the issue on February 5.What was said in Senthil Balaji case?In the Senthil Balaji case, the Supreme Court had said that strict provisions like Section 45(1)(iii) of PMLA cannot be used to keep an accused in jail for a long time without trial. The state does not have the right to keep an accused in custody for a long time.Affidavit was not verified through correct channelThere was an unexpected twist during the hearing when Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the ED, told the bench that the affidavit filed by the agency in the court was not verified through proper channels. he/she said there was something wrong in the way the affidavit was filed and asked the ED director to investigate.The court expressed surpriseThe court expressed surprise that the agency could reject its own affidavit and questioned the role of the advocate-on-record, through whom documents are filed in the Supreme Court. However, the senior law officer clarified that the AoR filed what was given to them by the department and the mistake lay within the agency. After this the court asked the AoR of ED to appear.Later, Raju said that the person handling the filing, being new to the job, may not have followed the procedure completely, but the affidavit contains all the valid arguments and grounds. ASG and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta gave clean chit to AoR.The court raised many important questions?This case has raised many important questions. Is spending a year in jail enough to get bail? Are the strict provisions of PMLA being misused? What is going on within the ED that led to such a lapse in filing the affidavit? Answers to these questions will be available only in the coming time. But this case will definitely spark debate on the provisions of bail under PMLA and the functioning of the ED. [ad_2]
