Supreme Court: ‘Chargesheets cannot continue to be filed to put people in jail’

New Delhi:

The Supreme Court challenged the Enforcement Directorate on the issue of its filing of supplementary chargesheet to deny default of bail to the accused and to jail such persons indefinitely. A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta told the central agency that this practice of effectively jailing the accused without trial troubled the Supreme Court.

“The whole purpose of breach of bail is that you don’t arrest (the accused) until the investigation is completed. You can’t (arrest the accused and) say the trial won’t start until the investigation is completed. You can’t go ahead and file a supplementary charge sheet and then the person has not been arrested Just go to jail after trial,” Justice Khanna told Solicitor General SV Raju, who was present at the ED.

“In this case, the person was imprisoned for 18 months. This troubles us. In some cases we take the case and bring it to your attention. When you arrest the accused, the trial must begin,” the court said Wednesday.

Under current law, an arrested person becomes eligible for default bail if authorities are unable to complete investigations or file a final charge sheet within the time limit stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Code. This time period is 60 or 90 days, depending on the circumstances.

The court had made a similar observation in April last year; a bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice CT Ravikumar said, “In the absence of completion of the investigation, the investigating agency The charge sheet cannot be filed just to deprive the arrested accused of his right to default on bail…”

Read | Supreme Court: Charge sheet cannot be filed without completion of investigation

The apex court’s key observation is likely to continue to weigh on several prominent figures, including opposition political leaders who have been arrested by investigative agencies and are still in jail, facing multiple charges and chargesheets but no trials.

The court made this observation while hearing the bail plea filed by the accused in connection with the Jharkhand illegal mining case. The accused, Prem Prakash, is an alleged aide of former chief minister Hemant Soren, who was arrested by the ED last month on money laundering charges.

Mr Prakash was denied bail by the Jharkhand High Court in January last year. He then took action to the Supreme Court, which noted that he had spent 18 months in jail and called it a “clear case of bail.”

Mr Raju expressed concerns that evidence or witnesses would be tampered with if the accused were released, but the court was not convinced. Justice Khanna told the investigating agency’s lawyers: “If he (Mr Prakash) did anything like that, you come to us…” and added, “…but 18 months in jail? “

The Supreme Court noted that under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the right to bail for a long term of imprisonment can be granted if prima facie it is found that the accused has not committed an offense and it is unlikely that he has committed the offence. Violate any law while on bail. The court held that this stemmed from Article 21 of the Constitution, which talks about the right to personal liberty.

The court referred to the imprisonment of senior AAP leader and former Delhi deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, who was arrested by the education ministry in February 2023 in a liquor policy case.

Last week, a bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and including Justice Khanna dismissed Mr Sisodia’s treatment plea after his bail plea was rejected in October. The court held that the allegation of a “windfall” of Rs 338 crore was “tentatively supported by the evidence”.

Read | Supreme Court dismisses Manish Sisodia’s treatment petition seeking bail

The court noted that the accused in the case had spent 18 months in jail and said that “Section 45 (of the PMLA) does not abridge the constitutional rights (under Section 21 of the Constitution)…that is very clear”.

“Even in Manish Sisodia’s case, I have said that defaulting to bail is a different matter. If there is delay in the trial, the power of the court to grant bail will not be taken away,” Justice Khanna said.

The Supreme Court’s opinion on the bail default and the supplementary chargesheet came as the opposition accused central agencies such as the education ministry and the Central Bureau of Investigation of targeting rivals of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, especially ahead of elections, to force them to switch to the party.

The BJP has refuted such accusations, insisting that the CBI and ED are independent and working towards the government’s resolve to root out all corruption.

However, Prem Prakash was ultimately denied interim bail today and the court accepted a request to hold the proceedings for a month to determine the progress of the trial, which will now be held daily.

NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channel. click the link Get all the latest updates from NDTV in your chat.