Can't keep people in custody by filing chargesheets: Supreme Court to ED

Supreme Court came down heavily on the Enforcement Directorate on Wednesday and said that the central agency cannot keep a person in custody without a trial.

The apex court critised the ED after it filed four supplementary chargesheets in a money laundering case.

The Supreme Court was hearing the bail plea of Prem Prakash who was arrested in August 2022 with two AK-47 rifles, 60 live rounds and two magazines. Prakash has alleged that ED detained him without any trial of 18 months.

Prem Prakash, who was close-aid of former Jharkhand chief minister Hemant Soren, said that ED put him in jail without any evidence.

According to the law, a person is eligible for a default bail if the officials cannot complete the investigation or submit a final chargesheet within 60-90 days of the arrest.

"We are putting you (ED) on notice. (Under the law) You cannot arrest a person without the investigation in the case being complete. A person cannot be put in custody without the commencement of trial. It is akin to detention and affects the liberty of an individual. In some cases, we have to settle this issue," the bench told Raju.

Justice Khanna said an accused cannot be denied the benefit of default bail by filing supplementary chargesheets.

"The whole object of default bail is that you do not arrest until investigation is complete. You cannot say that a trial will not commence unless the investigation in the case is complete. You cannot keep on filing supplementary chargesheets and keep the person in jail without trial," he said.

Justice Khanna said the petitioner has been behind bars for 18 months and supplementary chargesheets are being filed one after the other, which is eventually delaying the trial.

"This is what is bothering us. Trial has to begin when you arrest an accused. You cannot deny the benefit of default bail for delayed commencement of trial. Default bail is a right of the accused and it cannot be denied by filing supplementary chargesheet," Justice Khanna said.

He said even section 45 of PMLA does not bar the grant of bail on grounds of long incarceration.

"We have held this in the Manish Sisodia case (Delhi excise policy scam case), if there is long incarceration and undue delay in commencement of trial, the court can grant bail. Section 45 does not bar grant of bail because this right flows from Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution," Justice Khanna said.

The bench posed various questions to Raju, who sought a month's time to respond to the queries, saying the accused is an influential person, and if released on bail, he may influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence.

The top court asked Raju to respond to all questions put forth by the bench within a month and posted the matter for further hearing on April 29.

Advocate Siddharth Agarwal, appearing for Prakash, said when the initial FIR was lodged, his client's name was not there and no transaction had been found between him and the co-accused.

He said the statements of two crucial witnesses do not directly implicate him.

The top court directed the special PMLA court, where Prakash is being tried, to expedite the hearing.

(with PTI inputs)