The Supreme Court granted bail to Anwar Dhebar in a Rs 2,000 crore liquor scam case. It clarified, “It is not a rule to be in custody for a year to get bail.”
New Delhi: Today, On May 20, The Supreme Court of India has clearly stated that there is no legal requirement for an accused in a money laundering case to stay in jail for at least one year before applying for bail.
This important statement was made by the top court while granting bail to businessman Anwar Dhebar, who was arrested in connection with a massive Rs 2,000 crore liquor scam.
ALSO READ: PMLA| “1,739 Money Laundering Cases Are Under Trial”: ED Director
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, heard the bail plea filed by Anwar Dhebar.
He was arrested in August last year and has already spent more than nine months in judicial custody.
While allowing bail to Anwar Dhebar, the Supreme Court said,
“It is not a rule to be in custody for a year to get bail.”
This remark clarifies that the length of time an accused has spent in jail cannot be the sole reason to decide whether bail should be granted or not.
The bench was hearing Dhebar’s plea in a case that involves alleged financial irregularities and money laundering in the liquor business, amounting to over Rs 2,000 crore.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been investigating the matter under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and several persons are said to be involved.
Anwar Dhebar, who has denied all the allegations, had applied for bail on the grounds that he has already been in custody for a significant period, and that the investigation is still ongoing.
ALSO READ: ED Charges AAP MLA Amanatullah Khan in Waqf Board Money Laundering Case
His legal team argued that continued incarceration would be unjustified and a violation of his right to liberty.
While deciding the case, the Supreme Court took note of the fact that there is no such law that requires an accused to spend a minimum period like one year in jail before being considered for bail in cases of money laundering.
The court’s order is significant because it addresses a common perception that people accused under the PMLA must remain in jail for long durations before securing bail.
In its order, the bench categorically stated, “It is not a rule to be in custody for a year to get bail.”
This ruling could set an important precedent and provide relief to many accused who are behind bars for months in complex financial crime investigations, especially those involving the Enforcement Directorate.
The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes that each bail case should be decided on its own facts and merits, and that the right to bail cannot be mechanically denied based on how long the accused has already been in jail.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Money Laundering
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
