Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 704

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Kalvakuntla Kavitha – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3522 of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 10778 of 2024] With Criminal Appeal No. 3523 of 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 10785 of 2024]
Decided On : 27-08-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitesh Rana, Adv. Mr. P. Mohith Rao, AOR Ms. J. Akshitha, Adv. Ms. Arveen Sekhon, Adv. Mr. Deepak Nagar, Adv. Mr. Somanadri Goud .k, Adv. Mr. Shaik Sohil Akthar, Adv. Ms. Muskaan Khurana, Adv. Mr. Eugene S Philomene, Adv. Mr. Ashish Jacob Mathee, Adv. Mr. Varun Varma, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shubam Rajhans, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Kohli, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Rohatgi,Adv. Mr. Keshav Sehgal,Adv. Mr. Shashank Khurana,Adv. Ms. Kalyani Bhide Gharote, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv. Mr. Hitarth Raja, Adv. Ms. Shweta Desai,Adv. Ms. Abhi Priya Rai, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Bail – A woman is entitled for special treatment while her prayer for bail is being considered.
(2) Prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial – Bail is rule and refusal is an exception – Fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of Constitution is superior to statutory restrictions.

Headnote:
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45(1) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483] – Bail application – Considerations – Courts should avoid elaborate discussion at stage of considering application for bail – A woman is entitled for special treatment while her prayer for bail is being considered – Appellant has been behind bars for last five months – In CBI case charge-sheet has been filed and in ED case complaint has been filed – As such, custody of appellant is not necessary for the purpose of investigation – Taking into consideration that there are about 493 witnesses to be examined and documents to be considered are in range of about 50,000 pages, likelihood of trial being concluded in near future is impossible – Prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial – Bail is rule and refusal is an exception – Fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of Constitution is superior to statutory restrictions – When a statute specifically provides a special treatment for a certain category of accused, while denying such a benefit, Court will be required to give specific reasons as to why such a benefit is to be denied – Persons of tender age and woman who are likely to be more vulnerable, may sometimes be misused by unscrupulous elements – Bail granted to appellant against conditions. (Paras 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 27 and 29)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals challenge judgment and order dated 01.07.2024 passed by Single Judge of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application Nos.1675 and 1739 of 2024, vide which Single Judge has refused to grant bail to appellant herein.
Findings of Court:
Single Judge of High Court has totally misdirected herself while denying benefit of proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA.
Result : Appeals allowed

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals challenge the judgment and order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application Nos.1675 and 1739 of 2024, vide which the learned Single Judge has refused to grant bail to the appellant herein.

3. Though the matter has been argued at length by Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel along with Shri D.S. Naidu and Shri Vikram Chaudhri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Shri S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General of India (for short, ‘ASG’) for the respondent(s), at length; learned ASG has suggested that this Court should avoid elaborate discussions on the merits, inasmuch as any observations may prejudice the rights of either of the parties at the trial.

4. We appreciate the fairness of the learned ASG in suggesting the Court not to record the detailed elaborations on the merits of the case. It has been a consistent view of this Court that the Courts should avoid elaborate discussion at the stage of considering application for bail. We would therefore avoid any discussion on the merits of the present case inasmuch as the same may prejudice the rights of either of the parties at the trial.

5. Shri Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel submits that there is no material on record so as to implicate the appellant herein with the offences charged with. In any case, he submits that insofar as the appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.10778 of 2024 is concerned, the complaint has been filed by the prosecution and insofar as the appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.10785 of 2024 is concerned, the charge-sheet has already been filed. It is submitted that since the investigation is complete, further custody of the appellant would not be required.

6. Shri Rohatgi, relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1920 : 2024 INSC 595 submits that inasmuch as both the said case and the present case arise out of the same set of facts and so in the present case also there are about 493 witnesses to be examined and the documents to be considered are in the range of about 50,000 pages. He further submits that no proceeds of crime have been recovered from the appellant. Shri Rohatgi further submits that the appellant is a woman and is therefore entitled to special treatment under proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, ‘PMLA’).

7. Shri S.V. Raju, learned ASG vehemently opposed these appeals. He submits that the statements of various witnesses as well as co-accused would clearly show that the present appellant was a kingpin in arranging the deal between the co-accused-Arvind Kejriwal and the south lobby. He submits that the statements of the witnesses clearly show that the proceeds of the crime have passed through, or at least at her instance. Learned ASG further submits that not only the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA but also the statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the learned Magistrate would clearly implicate the present appellant in the trial.

8. Learned ASG further submits that the learned Trial Judge has rightly refused to grant the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA on the ground that the appellant is a woman, inasmuch as she has indulged herself into tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses. He submits that the appellant has formatted her mobile set in order to destroy the evidence which was against her.

9. Learned ASG further submits that the sequence as to in what manner the accused Arun Pillai has retracted his statement would clearly show that it is the present appellant, who has a role to play. He submits that though the statement of Arun Pillai under Section 50 of the PMLA was recorded on 10.11.2022 after a period of more than three months, he has retracted the statement on 09.