SC Rules Statements in Custody Under PMLA Inadmissible, Grants Bail

The Supreme Court ruled that statements given by accused under custody to the same probe agency are inadmissible under PMLA, granting bail to Prem Prakash. The court emphasized fair play and justice and found the statements contradictory to legal principles.


Devdiscourse News Desk | Updated: 28-08-2024 21:50 IST | Created: 28-08-2024 21:50 IST
SC Rules Statements in Custody Under PMLA Inadmissible, Grants Bail
Supreme Court of India (File Photo/ANI) . Image Credit: ANI
  • Country:
  • India

The Supreme Court on Wednesday made a landmark ruling stating that it would be unfair to treat statements given by the accused to the same probe agency while in custody under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) as admissible. This decision came as the court granted bail to an accused, reiterating the principle that bail should be the rule and jail the exception.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan highlighted that an accused in custody under the PMLA cannot be considered to be operating with a free mind. Therefore, any statement given under Section 50 PMLA to the same Investigating Agency is inadmissible against the maker. The bench explained that such a practice would be contrary to the principles of fair play and justice.

The ruling was made during the bail hearing of Prem Prakash, who was implicated in a money laundering case related to alleged fraudulent land acquisition. The Supreme Court criticized the previous judgment by the Jharkhand High Court, which had dismissed Prakash's bail application. Prakash had been in custody since August 2022 under a different Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and was later taken into custody by the Enforcement Directorate in August 2023. The bench concluded that the statements given by Prakash while in custody, if considered incriminating, would be invalid under Section 25 of the Evidence Act since they were made under judicial custody.

The court further clarified that it would be unjust to hold such statements admissible simply because they were recorded under different case numbers. This decision underscores the bench's commitment to ensuring fair treatment and justice in legal proceedings under the PMLA.

(With inputs from agencies.)

Give Feedback