In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the right to personal liberty by ruling that a person summoned under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and appearing before the designated Special Court is not considered to be in custody. This ruling eliminates the need for the accused to apply for bail under the stringent conditions imposed by the PMLA.
The Bench of Justices AS Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that if the accused voluntarily appears before the Special Court in response to a summons, it cannot be assumed that they are in custody. Therefore, there is no requirement for the accused to seek bail. However, the Special Court may request the accused to furnish bonds as per Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Justice Oka emphasized that a bond submitted under Section 88 of the CrPC is merely an assurance and does not equate to the grant of bail. Consequently, the stringent conditions outlined in Section 45 of the PMLA do not apply to such bonds. These conditions make it extremely challenging for an accused to obtain bail under the PMLA.
The Supreme Court’s judgment also requires the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to file a separate application for custody if they wish to detain a person who has appeared in court. The ED must provide specific grounds justifying the need for custody.
Justice Oka further emphasized that custody can only be granted by the Special Court if it is satisfied with the reasons presented by the ED for custodial interrogation. This upholds the fundamental right to liberty of the accused.
The core issue in this case was whether an accused individual appearing before the Special Court in response to a summons could apply for bail under the regular provisions of the CrPC. If so, whether such a bail application would need to meet the stringent conditions imposed by Section 45 of the PMLA.