Today (20 March): The Supreme Court directs that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot detain individuals indefinitely without trial, criticizing their practice of denying default bail by filing supplementary chargesheets.
NEW DELHI: Today (20 February), the Supreme Court criticized the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for its regular practice of denying default bail to accused individuals by filing supplementary chargesheets and prolonging the investigation, resulting in the indefinite detention of these individuals.
A bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta raised concern over the ED’s continuous investigation practice, which results in accused individuals languishing in jail without facing trial. The Court expressed its intention to address this issue promptly.
Justice Khanna emphasized the essence of default bail, stating that arrests shouldn’t occur until the investigation concludes. He criticized the ED’s practice of filing supplementary charge sheets to prolong detention without trial, highlighting a specific case where an individual had been detained for 18 months without trial.
“It is a clear case of bail, Mr. Raju. Is it not?”
the bench asked. “There are interesting questions here.”
ASG Raju said. “Interesting, okay, but the person is behind bars.”
Justice Khanna remarked. “But evidence tampering,”
ASG replied. “You come to us if he does any of that.
But 18 months in jail,” Justice Khanna replied.
An accused person is entitled to default bail if investigating authorities fail to complete the investigation or file chargesheets within the stipulated time frame, typically 60 or 90 days under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Accused parties have the option of statutory bail, also known as default bail, if the investigating agency does not complete its investigation within the allotted time frame.
The maximum period allotted to investigators is 60 or 90 days under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), depending on how severe the offense was. The accused can ask for default bail under the first proviso of Section 167(2) of the CrPC to be freed from detention if the authorities cannot complete the investigation within this time frame.
READ ALSO: CM Hemant Soren misses summons from ED
“The incarceration is there in this case, and Section 45 does not take away that right to be released on bail. I have already held this in Manish Sisodia and that if there is undue incarceration, then the court can grant bail, and Section 45 does not come in the way because that right to be released flows from Article 21 of the Constitution,” Justice Khanna remarked.
However, the ED often exploits a loophole by submitting supplementary chargesheets to deny default bail, even if the investigation remains incomplete.
These remarks were made during the hearing of a bail plea filed by Prem Prakash in connection with an illegal mining case. Prakash, allegedly an associate of former Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren, was accused of involvement in illegal mining activities and financial irregularities.
“Some legal issues have been raised. Re-list in the week commencing April 29, 2024. In case we are not able to take up the SLP for hearing, the issue of whether he should be granted interim bail will be decided on the same day. Time has been granted to ED to reply on legal issues,” the Court ordered.
READ ALSO: Arvind Kejriwal Offers Virtual Cooperation for ED Summons; Probe Agency Reacts
The Court scheduled the case for further hearing on April 29, where it will consider granting interim bail, and instructed the ED to address the legal issues raised.
The bench urged the trial court to expedite proceedings, preferably on a daily basis, emphasizing the importance of timely justice delivery.
