NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday clarified that there is no rule requiring an accused in a money laundering case to spend a full year in jail before being eligible for bail. This came as the Court granted bail to Anwar Dhebar, an accused in the Chhattisgarh liquor scam, who had been in custody for over nine months.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) argument that bail should not be granted since Dhebar had not completed one year in jail. The ED had cited previous cases, including that of former Tamil Nadu minister V Senthil Balaji, where the one-year custody mark was considered before granting bail.
Challenging this reasoning, the bench questioned whether the agency expected the accused to serve the entire maximum sentence of seven years before even being granted bail. The Court noted that with over 450 witnesses in the predicate offence, the trial was unlikely to conclude anytime soon.
Despite ED’s objection that Dhebar was politically influential and could interfere with the trial, the Court did not find merit in this claim. It directed the trial court to release him within a week, subject to conditions set by the special court.
Earlier, on January 17, the Supreme Court had observed that in cases where an accused had spent a year in custody and charges under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) were yet to be framed, bail could be considered. The Court has consistently held that prolonged incarceration and delays in trial can justify bail, tempering the stringent bail provisions under the PMLA.
