If you do not appear on summons, you will have to fulfill double condition of bail, important decision of Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court clarified in an important decision that if an accused in a money laundering case appears on the summons of the court, then he will not have to fulfill the double condition of bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). There were two legal questions before the Supreme Court that if the Special Court issues summons to the accused under the PMLA Act, will he apply for bail? If yes, then will the double condition for bail be applicable under Section 45 of PMLA? Actually, there is a provision under Section 45 of the PMLA Act that the accused in a money laundering case can be granted bail only if he fulfills the double condition. Do. That is, firstly it should be visible that the accused has not committed the crime and secondly, there should be no possibility of committing the crime during the period of bail. This condition is quite strict and that is why it is not easy to get bail after arrest in a PMLA case.

‘Filling the bail bond means that the appearance is ensured’

Supreme Court Justice A. S. The bench led by Oka has said in its important decision that if there is any accused in the PMLA case and the special court has issued summons to him. If he appears in the special court, then when he is produced, it will not be considered that he is in custody. In such a situation, it is not necessary for the accused to fulfill the double condition for bail. Rather, the special court can ask him to pay the bail bond.

Under Section 88 of CrPC, when the court issues summons to the accused in a case, then after the appearance of the accused, the court makes him fill a bail bond to ensure that the accused continues to appear in the court in future. This happens in cases in which the accused has not been arrested. The Supreme Court said that in such a case, it is not mandatory to implement the strict provision of double bail condition under Section 45 of the PMLA Act while accepting the bail bond.

Kejriwal’s petition against ED summons will be heard on July 11

what was the matter

The case is of Tarsem vs ED. ED based in Jalandhar zone of Punjab had registered a case of money laundering against the accused. The court had issued summons against the accused. After the summons, he filled the bail bond before the court and said that the double condition is not applicable on him under Section 45 of the PMLA Act. ED said that when the matter is of PMLA then double condition under Section 45 will be applicable. The accused approached the High Court for anticipatory bail but after not getting relief from there, filed an application in the Supreme Court.

So has the Supreme Court tightened the noose on the power of ED, understand the meaning of this decision

This decision will also become an example

PMLA law is very strict and the accused in this case does not get bail easily. However, many times the Supreme Court has been strict on ED in many past decisions. Recently, on March 20, 2024, the Supreme Court had said that if there is a delay in the trial of a money laundering case, there is no ban on granting bail. On October 4, 2023, the Supreme Court had said that non-cooperation despite ED summons cannot be a basis for arrest. The Supreme Court had said that at the time of arrest of the accused, the ED should explain the grounds of arrest in writing. Now the Supreme Court has given an important ruling in the matter of double condition of bail. These decisions will prove to be an example in the cases related to this in the coming days and the situation will become more clear.