Explained: How Nikesh Tarachand Shah Judgment Puts Barriers On Kejriwal Bail?

Total Views : 1,067
Zoom In Zoom Out Read Later Print

The "Nikesh Tarachand Shah" case serves as an important precedent in understanding the application of Section 45 of the PMLA. It reaffirms the constitutional principles underlying the provision while providing guidance on its interpretation and implementation in practice.

New Delhi (ABC Live): The Rouse Avenue Court on Friday remanded Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal to six days of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) until March 28, following his arrest on March 21 U/Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

The ABC Legal Research team valuate the chances of grant of bail to Kejriwal in above mentioned case and team reports as under;

 Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) significantly impacts the grant of bail in cases related to offenses under the Act. Its provisions have been subject to interpretation and application in various legal cases. One such notable case is the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of "Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India" (2017).

In this case, the Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of Section 45 of the PMLA. The petitioner challenged the provision, arguing that it violated the principles of personal liberty and fair trial guaranteed under the Constitution of India.

The Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of Section 45, clarified that the stringent conditions for bail under the provision were justified given the serious nature of offenses related to money laundering. However, it also emphasized the importance of ensuring that the provision did not lead to undue deprivation of personal liberty or unfair treatment of the accused.

The Court interpreted Section 45 as providing for a balance between the interests of the state in preventing money laundering and the fundamental rights of the accused. It affirmed that while the burden of proof may initially lie with the accused to demonstrate their eligibility for bail, the court must ultimately consider all relevant factors, including the nature of the offense, the evidence presented, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Furthermore, the Court held that the presumption against bail under Section 45 was not absolute and could be rebutted by the accused with cogent evidence. It stressed the need for courts to exercise their discretion judiciously, taking into account the individual circumstances of each case.

The "Nikesh Tarachand Shah" case serves as an important precedent in understanding the application of Section 45 of the PMLA. It reaffirms the constitutional principles underlying the provision while providing guidance on its interpretation and implementation in practice.

Also, Read

Explained: Why ED Arrested Arvind Kejriwal in Delhi Liquor Policy Scam?

See More

Latest Photos