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.
Explained: How Nikesh Tarachand Shah Judgment Puts Barriers On Kejriwal Bail?
Total Views :
1,336
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
