Bail – Delhi High Court Grants Relief to MK Faizy in PMLA Case

Bail –  The Delhi High Court on Monday ordered the release of M K Faizy, national president of the Social Democratic Party of India, in connection with a money laundering case being investigated by the Enforcement Directorate. While granting bail, the court made it clear that strict legal provisions cannot be applied in a way that results in prolonged and unjustified incarceration.

Court Questions Prolonged Detention

The order was delivered by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, who observed that the rigorous conditions laid down under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act should not be enforced mechanically. The judge noted that these provisions, though stringent, are not meant to justify indefinite detention without sufficient supporting material.

Section 45 of the Act sets out what are commonly referred to as “twin conditions” for bail. These require the accused to demonstrate that there are reasonable grounds to believe they are not guilty and that they are unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. The provision effectively places a heavier burden on the accused at the stage of seeking bail.

In her ruling, Justice Krishna stated that such conditions cannot override the fundamental principle that liberty should not be curtailed without compelling reasons. The court emphasized that bail, rather than jail, remains the guiding rule unless strong evidence suggests otherwise.

Lack of Concrete Evidence Highlighted

A key aspect of the court’s reasoning centered on the nature of the evidence presented against Faizy. The judge observed that there was no concrete material directly linking him to proceeds of crime under the money laundering framework. His alleged association with the Popular Front of India, an organization that has been banned, was cited by investigators. However, the court clarified that mere association, without substantive proof of involvement in unlawful financial transactions, is insufficient to deny bail.

The Social Democratic Party of India has been described by investigating agencies as the political wing of the Popular Front of India. Authorities have alleged that funds were routed and utilized in violation of the law. Despite these claims, the court found that the prosecution had not placed adequate evidence on record to justify continued custody at this stage.

Justice Krishna underscored that the seriousness of allegations alone cannot substitute for proof. Courts must carefully assess whether the statutory requirements for continued detention are genuinely met.

Balancing Investigation and Personal Liberty

The ruling reflects the judiciary’s ongoing effort to strike a balance between effective investigation and the protection of individual rights. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act grants wide powers to the Enforcement Directorate, particularly in cases involving alleged financial crimes with broader security implications. However, the court reiterated that these powers must be exercised within constitutional limits.

By granting bail, the High Court indicated that investigative agencies must substantiate their claims with clear and specific evidence when seeking to keep an accused person in custody for extended periods. The decision does not amount to a determination of guilt or innocence but ensures that the legal process proceeds without unnecessary deprivation of liberty.

Legal observers note that the interpretation of Section 45 has been the subject of significant judicial scrutiny in recent years. Courts across the country have repeatedly examined whether the provision aligns with broader constitutional safeguards related to personal freedom.

Proceedings to Continue

With bail granted, Faizy will be required to comply with conditions imposed by the court, which may include cooperation with the ongoing investigation and adherence to restrictions aimed at ensuring his availability for trial. The case itself remains pending, and further hearings will determine the next steps in the prosecution.

The Enforcement Directorate is expected to continue its probe into the alleged financial transactions and organizational links under examination. The High Court’s order, however, sends a clear message that stringent statutory provisions cannot be invoked in a manner that undermines established legal principles.

As the matter moves forward, the focus will remain on the strength of evidence presented in court and the adherence to due process in handling cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.