Supreme court rejects bail : Sisodia's liquor case or excise case. The apex court recently rejected the bail application of the leader of aam aadmi party manish Sisodia on Delhi liquor case. Previously high court has also rejected his application last month on the ground that the matter includes breach of trust and misuse of power by the person pleading for bail. Manish Sisodia was arrested in liquor case as well as by ED in the charges of corruption, whereas Arvind Kejriwal has surrendered himself.

The reasons of rejecting bail in ED cases are different from condition of bail in code of criminal procedure as quotes by supreme court observer 'Bail under PMLA an extreme form of shadow boxing'. PMLA is not a penal law whereas person seeking for bail under crpc is accused of penal laws. The matters dealing with ED involves in Inquires whereas the crpc is engaged in investigation, search, seizure and other cases. In criminal procedure the principle in innocent until proven guilty whereas the cases in PMLA is very strict and serious in nature, ED looks the person to whom he is inquiring as the person can temper the evidence and further engaging himself in cases.

Nature of offence, the person fleeing from justice or probability of tampering with evidence in crpc whereas PMLA cases person has high burden of proof and their bail will not affect any investigation process. The courts are the places where the cases of criminal matters are dealt with but PMLA being the special and specific provision the ED has wide power in process.

When we read the provision of crpc the person to be given the copy of FIR free of cost whereas documents are not the right of persons in PMLA cases as those are the internal document of an ED. Although the purpose of bail under both the provision is releasing the accused from trial but the provisions of PMLA is more stricter

The person seeking bail has to prove the burden of proof with completer or high innocence as it reverses burden of proof.

Similar to the UAPA, the PMLA establishes strict guidelines for issuing bail. A "negative" provision known as Section 45 of the PMLA prevents judges from providing bail unless the accused can demonstrate that there is no "prima facie" case against them and that they have no intention of committing another crime.

In the case of Dalip Jindal Vs Directorate Of Enforcement
The court said that investigations revealed significant money had been scammed, and Jindal failed to demonstrate innocence or the possibility of not committing future crimes while on bail. The court underlined the gravity of economic crimes and the lack of grounds to grant bail, finally dismissing his bail application.
In the landmark Vijay Madanlal Choudhary judgement, which had practically given unbridled powers to the ED, the judge noted that "even at the stage of bail, the court is expected to consider the question from the angle as to whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea."

Similar and recent cases of PMLA this year related to condition of bail (2024)

End Notes:

• Lalita Mohan Das vs Assistant Director, E.D
• Directorate of Enforcement vs Mohan Madaan
• Sanjay Jain Vs Enforcement Directorate
• Dalip Jindal Vs Directorate Of Enforcement
• Hari Om Ra Vs Directorate Of Enforcement
• Mr Talib Hassan Darvesh Vs The Directorate Of Enforcement
• Ramesh Chandra Vs The Directorate Of Enforcement
• Amit Aggarwal Vs Directorate Of Enforcement

Written By: Priyanshi Jain, Faculty at Shri Vaishnav Institute of Law
Email: [email protected]