Aligning with its verdict in the Senthil Balaji case, the Supreme Court has set a one-year limit on considering bail for those accused of money laundering, who haven't been formally charged. While the court had previously identified delay in the trial as a ground for bail, this is the first time it has reportedly specified a one-year time frame, standardising bail provisions for courts handling Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cases.
The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing the bail plea of Arun Pati Tripathi, an accused in the Chhattisgarh excise case. Arun was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on August 8, 2024, and has been in custody for five months under the PMLA. The court expressed reservations about granting bail.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora and advocate Mohit D Ram argued that his five months in custody compound to 18 months as he was in jail for a related offence before his current ED arrest. However, the bench clarified that the pre-ED custody period cannot be considered for granting bail and scheduled a detailed hearing on the matter for February 5.
The Supreme Court’s earlier verdict in the Senthil Balaji case had read down stringent bail provisions under Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, ruling that prolonged jail terms without trial could not be used as a tool to deny bail.
The hearing also took an unusual turn when Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, informed the bench that an affidavit submitted by the agency had not been vetted through proper channels. The ASG said there were irregularities in its filing, calling it ‘fishy’ and asked the ED director to hold an inquiry. The bench expressed surprise that the ED could disown its affidavit and sought clarification from the advocate-on-record (AoR) responsible for filing documents in the Supreme Court.
The court expressed astonishment at the agency's attempt to disown its own affidavit and questioned the role of the advocate-on-record (AoR) responsible for filing documents in the Supreme Court. A senior law officer clarified that the AoR had filed what was provided by the department and attributed the fault to the agency itself. The court subsequently summoned the ED's AoR for an explanation.
The ASG explained that while the individual handling the filing was new to the job and may not have fully adhered to procedures, the affidavit still contained valid arguments and grounds. Both the Additional Solicitor General and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the AoR, giving them a clean chit.