SUPREME COURT RESERVED JUDGEMENT: ARE SECTION 45 BAIL CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO ACCUSED WHO APPEARS BEFORE COURT AS PER SUMMONS? | PMLA

The Supreme Court in the case Tarsem Lal v. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office and other connected matters observed and has reserved the Judgment on the issue whether an accused in a money laundering case is required to fulfil the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, PMLA when he executes a bond for appearance before the Special Court in pursuance of a summons issued to him.

The bench comprising of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the present matter.

The issued raised before the Supreme Court is whether the execution of the bond by an accused for showing his presence before the court under Section 88 of Cod eof Criminal Procedure, CrPC would amount to applying for bail to make twin conditions of bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 applicable.

The court stated that as per section 15 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, PMLA bail can be granted to an accused in a money laundering case only if twin conditions are satisfied - there should be prima facie satisfaction that the accused has not committed the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Earlier, the court in the case had framed two questions to be decided: If pursuant to the summons issued by the Special Court, the accused appears before the Special Court, whether he is being required to apply for bail in terms of Section 437 CrPC?

If the answer to the said issue is in affirmative, whether such kind of bail plea will be governed by the twin conditions imposed by Section 45 of the PMLA Act?

The court in the case observed and has expressed a prima facie view that when the Special Court has taken cognizance of the ED complaint, then the powers of arrest under Section 19 of the PMLA cannot be exercised.