Justices Sanjiv Khanna and PV Sanjay Kumar, who formed the Bench, recognized the gravity of the allegations against Singal. However, they determined that Singal was entitled for bail due to the extended period he has been in custody and the lack of progress in his trial.
![[Bhusan Steel PMLA Case] 'Not A Minor Offender, Need to Set Limits for Economic Crimes, Entitled For Bail, Even if He Shook Up the Economy': Supreme Court Grants Bail To Ex-Bhushan Steel MD Neeraj Singal](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image-2024-09-06T124412.507.png?resize=820%2C458&ssl=1)
New Delhi: On Friday(6th Sept), the Supreme Court granted bail to Neeraj Singal, a former promoter of Bhushan Steel, in a Rs 46,000 crore money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
READ ALSO: Bhushan Steel Bank Fraud Case | Delhi HC Seeks Accused’s Response to ED’s Plea
Justices Sanjiv Khanna and PV Sanjay Kumar, who formed the Bench, recognized the gravity of the allegations against Singal. However, they determined that Singal was entitled for bail due to the extended period he has been in custody and the lack of progress in his trial.
During the hearing, the Court remarked,
“He is not just a minor offender. We need to set limits for economic crimes. His actions shook up economy. How long has he been arrested?”
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Singal, responded,
“He has been detained for 16 months. The principle from Pankaj Bansal applies here. Pre-trial detention should not be a form of punishment.”
The Court replied,
“If he has learned his lesson, that’s one thing. However, we also need to enforce strict measures; despite the economic impact, proper grounds for detention must be established.”
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the Enforcement Directorate (ED), argued,
“This is not a case for bail. It’s a serious offence.”
The Court responded, emphasizing that if the trial against Singal is significantly delayed, bail would be necessary.
“We understand the effects of such scams on the public and public companies. However, if the trial is indefinitely prolonged, we must consider liberty. Yet, this should not be taken lightly; the alleged money laundering constitutes a fraud against society as a whole,”
the Court stated.
The Court then ruled in favor of Singal’s appeal, overturning the Delhi High Court’s bail denial. Singal was granted bail with specific conditions, including surrendering his passport.
“The bail is granted subject to the terms set by the trial court. Section 438(2) CrPC must be adhered to. He must provide a contact number for the agency to reach him, surrender his passport, and he cannot leave India without court permission. The ED can seek a recall of the bail if these conditions are violated,”
the Court clarified.
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states that the High Court or Court of Session can impose conditions when granting bail to a person who is apprehending arrest. These conditions can include:
- The person must be available for questioning by a police officer when required
- The person must not try to dissuade anyone from sharing facts with the court or police officer
- The person must not leave India without the court’s permission
- Other conditions as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of Section 437
Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi also represented Singal.
Background
Neeraj Singal is accused of causing a public loss exceeding Rs 46,000 crores. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) alleges that Singal, in collusion with other individuals and business entities, illicitly acquired loan funds on behalf of BSL and other group companies. He is also accused of laundering the proceeds of crime through a complicated network of over 150 companies, all ultimately controlled by him and Bharat Bhushan.
The High Court had previously rejected Singal’s request for bail, stating that the grounds for his arrest were communicated orally at the time of his arrest and that this complied with Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Court also noted that the ‘grounds of arrest’ provided to Singal at his arrest were documented in three pages and signed by two independent witnesses, which supported their validity.