Supreme Court’s Verdict on Improper Bail Grant in Money Laundering Case: Directorate of Enforcement vs. Bablu Sonkar
The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on an important issue concerning judicial propriety in the grant of bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The case involved the Directorate of Enforcement and Bablu Sonkar, where the Bombay High Court had improperly granted bail in an ongoing money laundering investigation. This ruling highlights the significance of judicial discipline, proper adherence to roster allocations, and the legal standards for granting bail in financial crime cases.
Background of the Case
The case originated when the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a complaint against Bablu Sonkar under the PMLA. The respondent, Bablu Sonkar, subsequently approached the Bombay High Court with a writ petition seeking the quashing of the complaint. However, the High Court did not grant interim relief at the time of filing the petition.
On April 21, 2023, the case was heard by the assigned roster bench, and judgment was reserved. However, due to a change in the roster system on June 5, 2023, the case was reassigned to a different bench. Despite this, on June 26, 2023, the previous bench passed an order stating that the judgment was ‘de-reserved’ and that the case should be reheard along with similar pending matters.
What was particularly controversial was that the same bench proceeded to grant interim bail to the respondent even though there was no fresh application for bail filed on that day. The decision raised several concerns about procedural irregularities and judicial propriety, leading to an appeal by the Enforcement Directorate in the Supreme Court.
Key Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court examined the following legal and procedural issues:
- Whether the High Court bench had the authority to pass a bail order after releasing the case for rehearing.
- Whether granting bail without a fresh application and without recording reasons was in accordance with legal principles.
- Whether procedural discipline regarding court roster allocations was violated.
Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Arguments (Directorate of Enforcement)
The Enforcement Directorate, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, strongly contested the bail order, presenting the following arguments:
- The High Court’s order granting bail was procedurally flawed as the case had already been released for fresh hearing.
- No application for bail had been moved on June 26, 2023, yet the court granted bail suo motu.
- The order failed to record any reasons justifying bail, which is a mandatory requirement under PMLA.
- The decision bypassed the roster system and undermined the authority of the new assigned bench.
Respondent’s Arguments (Bablu Sonkar)
The respondent’s legal counsel defended the bail order, arguing:
- The High Court had discretionary power to grant bail.
- The order was passed in light of similar cases pending before the court.
- The grant of interim bail was intended to strike a balance between the rights of the accused and the interest of justice.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s order was procedurally improper. Justice Abhay S. Oka, delivering the judgment, observed:
“The moment the Bench directed that the case was released and it should be heard afresh, the propriety required that the Bench should not have passed any order on merits, as the roster of the writ petition was with another Bench on that day.”
The Court emphasized that roster discipline is not an empty formality, and all judges are bound by it. The order granting bail was deemed to be a direct violation of judicial discipline.
Final Judgment by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court’s order granting bail was improper and needed to be set aside. However, it clarified that it was not deciding the bail issue on merits but was only addressing the procedural impropriety. The respondent was given the liberty to file a fresh bail application before the appropriate roster bench.
The Court issued the following directives:
- The respondent must surrender within two weeks.
- Once the respondent surrenders, they may apply for bail before the proper bench.
- The High Court must decide the bail application on priority.
Impact of the Judgment
This ruling reaffirms the importance of procedural propriety in judicial proceedings. The case underscores:
- The need for courts to strictly adhere to roster allocations.
- The requirement that bail orders, especially under PMLA, must be supported by recorded reasons.
- The importance of due process in ensuring fairness in judicial decision-making.
By setting aside the improper bail order, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that judicial orders must be passed within the framework of established legal procedures. This case serves as a precedent for future cases involving similar procedural irregularities.
Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/andhra-pradesh-murder-case-supreme-court-partially-modifies-conviction/
Petitioner Name: Directorate of Enforcement.Respondent Name: Bablu Sonkar.Judgment By: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.Place Of Incident: Bombay High Court.Judgment Date: 09-02-2024.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: directorate-of-enfor-vs-bablu-sonkar-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-09-02-2024.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Money Laundering Cases
See all petitions in Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay S. Oka
See all petitions in Judgment by Ujjal Bhuyan
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
