SC reiterates bail is rule, jail exception

New Delhi [India], August 28 : The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that it would be unfair to treat statements given by the accused to the same probe agency under custody in a case under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) admissible while it granted bail to an accused reiterating that bail rules, jail exception.
"We have no hesitation in holding that when an accused is in custody under PMLA irrespective of the case for which he is under custody, any statement under Section 50 PMLA to the same Investigating Agency is inadmissible against the maker. The reason being that the person in custody pursuant to the proceeding investigated by the same Investigating Agency is not a person who can be considered as one operating with a free mind. It will be extremely unsafe to render such statements admissible against the maker, as such a course of action would be contrary to all canons of fair play and justice," the top court said.
A bench of justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan made these remarks when it granted bail to one Prem Prakash in a money laundering case related to alleged fraudulently acquiring land.
Prem Prakash has challenged the judgment dated March 22 2024 of the High Court of Jharkhand whereby his bail application was dismissed. In the present case, Prakash was taken into custody by Enforcement Directorate on August 11 2023 and he was already in custody from August 25 2022 in another Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).
The top court ruled that a statement given by an accused while under custody to probe an agency incriminating oneself in another money laundering case would be inadmissible in evidence and this would travesty of justice to make such a statement admissible under the provision of the PMLA because he was under custody for another Enforcement Case Information Report.
"In the facts of the present case, we hold that the statement of the appellant if to be considered as incriminating against the maker, will be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act since he has given the statement whilst in judicial custody, pursuant to another proceeding instituted by the same Investigating Agency. Taken as he was from the judicial custody to record the statement, it will be a travesty of justice to render the statement admissible against the appellant (Prem Prakash)," the top court said.
"The appellant-accused cannot be told that after all while giving this statement:- "you were wearing a hat captioned 'ECIR 5/2023' and not the hat captioned 'ECIR 4/2022'," the top court said.
The top court also dealt with the question that arises is when a person is in custody in another case investigated by the same Investigating Agency, whether the statements recorded for a new case in which his arrest is not yet shown, and which are claimed to contain incriminating material against the maker, would be admissible under Section 50.