A bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih issued this clarification while granting bail to Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir, who were accused in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case. The court noted their prolonged incarceration and observed that the trial was unlikely to commence soon.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court today (12th Dec) has ruled that while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and its director may provide factual instructions in money laundering cases, they cannot dictate how public prosecutors conduct themselves in court. Highlighting the independence of public prosecutors as court officers, the ruling seeks to limit investigative agencies’ influence over judicial proceedings.
A bench comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Augustine George Masih issued this clarification while granting bail to Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir, who were accused in the Delhi Waqf Board money laundering case. The court noted their prolonged incarceration and observed that the trial was unlikely to commence soon.
The bench addressed a trial court’s prior directive requiring the ED director to instruct prosecutors not to oppose bail applications in cases where trial delays were attributed to the agency.
The Supreme Court termed this directive “drastic” but emphasized the need for fairness and transparency in prosecutors’ actions.
The court stated, “The ED and its director may provide instructions on case facts but cannot dictate the prosecutor’s conduct as an officer of the court.”
It further clarified that prosecutors are not barred from opposing bail when delays are not caused by the ED.
In granting bail to another accused, Kausar Imam Siddiqui, the trial court had earlier criticized the ED for delaying the trial.
Justice Oka stressed that public prosecutors must act fairly, stating, “If a case is governed by a binding precedent, it is the prosecutor’s duty to bring it to the court’s attention.”
He added that prosecutors should take a fair stand if delays in trial arise due to the ED’s default or conduct.
The Supreme Court has also granted bail to Siddiqui’s co-accused, Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir. The Court observed that both individuals had been in custody for over a year without charges being framed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The complaint, supported by 29 witnesses and approximately 4,000 pages of documentation, has seen significant trial delays. Accepting the accused’s undertakings not to hinder the trial further, the Court decided to release them on bail.
The bench noted that the delay in framing charges and the provided undertakings aligned with the principles outlined in its earlier judgment in V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director. Consequently, the appellants were deemed eligible for bail, subject to strict conditions and adherence to their commitments.
“The trial is unlikely to commence soon, as even charges have not been framed. Therefore, considering the case’s circumstances and the undertakings provided by the appellants, the principles in paragraphs 25 to 28 of the judgment in V. Senthil Balaji must be applied, and the appellants must be released on bail,” the Court stated.
Additionally, the Court clarified that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) could seek bail cancellation if the trial is delayed due to any actions or omissions by the appellants.
Background
The case pertains to allegations against AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan, who, as Chairman of the Delhi Waqf Board, is accused of facilitating illegal recruitments resulting in proceeds of crime. These funds were allegedly used to acquire properties through associates. Khan had earlier been granted bail after the trial court dismissed the ED’s supplementary chargesheet due to the absence of mandatory sanction under Section 197(1) of the CrPC.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
