New Delhi [India], August 28 (ANI): The Supreme Court has propounded that the fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution is superior to the statutory restrictions and reiterated that the prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial.
The observation was made by a bench of justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan when it allowed the bail plea of BRS leader K Kavitha on Tuesday. The detailed order copy was released on Wednesday.
“We had also reiterated the well-established principle that “bail is the rule and refusal is an exception”. We had further observed that the fundamental right of liberty provided under Article 21 of the Constitution is superior to the statutory restrictions,” the top court said on August 28’s order.
“Relying on the various pronouncements of this CCBIED K Kavitha Delhi Excise policy case, BRS leader K Kavitha gets Bailourt, we had observed in the case of Manish Sisodia (supra) that the prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial,” the top court said.
The top court further opined that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA would entitle a woman to special treatment while her prayer for bail is being considered.
The top court also took strong exception to the Delhi High Court ruling which denied the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA to Kavitha and came to a “heartening conclusion” that the appellant Kavitha is highly qualified and a well-accomplished person.
“We find that the learned Single Judge (Delhi HC) erroneously observed that the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA is applicable only to a “vulnerable woman”,” the top court said.
“We further find that the learned Single Judge totally misapplied the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement,” the top court said.
The top court noted that in the case of Saumya Chaurasia, the apex court does not say that merely because a woman is highly educated or sophisticated or a Member of Parliament or a Member of Legislative Assembly, she is not entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA.
“We, therefore, find that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has totally misdirected herself while denying the benefit of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA,” the top court said.
“A perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Saumya Chaurasia (supra) would show that this Court has observed that the Courts need to be more sensitive and sympathetic towards the category of persons included in the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA and similar provisions in the other Acts. The Court observes that the persons of tender age and women who are likely to be more vulnerable may sometimes be misused by unscrupulous elements and made scapegoats for committing such crime,” the top court said.
The top court further observed that nowadays educated and well-placed women in society engage themselves in commercial ventures and enterprises and advertently or inadvertently engage themselves in illegal activities.
The apex court therefore cautions that the courts, while deciding such matters, should exercise the discretion judiciously using their prudence. (ANI)
Disclaimer: This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed of ANI; only the image & headline may have been reworked by News Services Division of World News Network Inc Ltd and Palghar News and Pune News and World News
HINDI, MARATHI, GUJARATI, TAMIL, TELUGU, BENGALI, KANNADA, ORIYA, PUNJABI, URDU, MALAYALAM
For more details and packages
