Statements Made In Custody In PMLA Cases Not Admissible As Evidence: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court ruled that any incriminating statement made by an accused to an investigating officer while in custody in a money laundering case will not be admissible as evidence. The court emphasized that bail is the rule and jail the exception.

Court Grants Bail to Prem Prakash

The court granted bail to Prem Prakash, allegedly an aide of Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, in a money laundering case. This decision follows the Supreme Court’s recent granting of bail to Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader K Kavitha, arrested in March in a money laundering case linked to Delhi’s now-scrapped liquor policy. Earlier this month, AAP leader Manish Sisodia also received bail in a similar case.

Supreme Court Clarifies on PMLA Cases

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan stated, “Even in PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) cases, bail is a rule and jail the exception.” The bench referred to Section 45 of the PMLA, which outlines the conditions for bail, including that the accused must not be likely to commit any offense while on bail.

The court clarified that any statement made by an accused in custody under PMLA before an investigating officer is inadmissible. The bench noted that making such statements admissible would be against the principles of justice.

In granting bail to Prem Prakash, the court found that the appellant is not prima facie guilty and is unlikely to tamper with evidence. The observations are limited to the bail hearing and should not influence the trial.

The Supreme Court’s ruling came a day after granting relief to BRS leader K Kavitha, where the court questioned whether central agencies had the freedom to “pick and choose” an accused.

Also Read: Karnataka Home Minister Ensures Vigilance At Bellary Jail After Darshan’s Transfer