New Delhi: The Supreme Court, while granting bail to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha in excise policy cases, has reiterated that the prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial.
Apex court on Tuesday granted bail to BRS leader Kavutha in excise policy cases
A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice KV Viswanathan granted bail to Kavitha in corruption and money laundering cases registered by the Cengtral Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the alleged irregularities in the Delhi Excise Policy on Tuesday.
Bail is the rule and refusal is an exception: Apex court
The bench also reiterated that the well-established principle that “bail is the rule and refusal is an exception” and further observed that the fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is superior to the statutory restrictions.
Proviso to s. 45(1) of PMLA would entitle a woman for special treatment while her prayer for bail is being considered: Apex court
The bench, while rejecting the finding of the Delhi High Court, further said that the proviso to section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) would entitle a woman for special treatment while her prayer for bail is being considered.
The apex court noted that the single judge of the High Court, while denying the benefit of the proviso to section 45(1) of the PMLA, came to a “heartening conclusion” that Kavitha is highly qualified and a well-accomplished person and has made significant contributions to politics and social work and proceeded to observe that she cannot be equated to a “vulnerable woman”.
Single judge erroneously observed that proviso to section 45(1) of PMLA is applicable only to a ‘vulnerable woman: Apex court
“We find that the learned Single Judge erroneously observed that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA is applicable only to a “vulnerable woman”, the Supreme Court said and added, “The learned single judge totally misapplied the ratio laid down by this court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement.”
The apex court said that a perusal of the judgment of the top court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia would show that this court has observed that the courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the category of persons included in the first proviso to section 45 of the PMLA and similar provisions in the other Acts and the Court observes that the persons of tender age and women who are likely to be more vulnerable may sometimes be misused by unscrupulous elements and made scapegoats for committing such crime.
No doubt that this court observes that nowadays the educated and well-placed women in the society engage themselves in commercial ventures and enterprises and advertently or inadvertently engage themselves in the illegal activities and the court therefore puts a caution that the courts, while deciding such matters, should exercise the discretion judiciously using their prudence, the top court added.
“This court, in the carefully couched paragraph extracted above used the phrase “persons of tender age and woman who are likely to be more vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by the unscrupulous elements”. This is vastly different from saying that the proviso to section 45(1) of the PMLA applies only to “vulnerable woman”. Further, this court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia does not say that merely because a woman is highly educated or sophisticated or a Member of Parliament or a Member of Legislative Assembly, she is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to section 45(1) of the PMLA,” the top court said and added, “We, therefore, find that the learned single judge of the High Court has totally misdirected herself while denying the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA.”
Kavitha is not entitled to benefit of proviso to section 45 of PMLA, Delhi High Court held
The Delhi High Court, while denying bail to Kavitha in CBI and ED cases, said, “K. Kavitha cannot be equated to a vulnerable woman who may have been misused to commit an offence, which is the class of women for whom the proviso to section 45 of PMLA has been incorporated, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Saumya Chaurasia. Accordingly, this court is of the considered opinion that Smt. K. Kavitha is not entitled to the benefit of proviso to section 45 of PMLA.”