Right to liberty key: SC on bail matters
The remarks emphasised that courts must adopt a flexible approach in bail matters and bridge any gaps between law and justice
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asserted that accused individuals should have access to all relevant documents, seized by the investigating agency, at any stage of the case and especially at the time of bail hearing -- an observation that is expected to have significant implications for future cases, particularly those under the stringent Prevention of Money Laundering Act or PMLA, where access to documents and the right to a fair trial are often contentious issues.
The remarks, by the bench comprising Justices AS Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Augustine George Masih once again underscored the paramount importance of the right to liberty, emphasising that courts must adopt a flexible approach in bail matters and bridge any gaps between law and justice.
Stressing that accused individuals should have access to all documents that could aid in securing their release, the apex court highlighted that laws regarding the supply of documents must be interpreted to facilitate the ends of justice by affording a “meaningful opportunity” to those incarcerated.
The court was deliberating on the extent to which an accused person is entitled to access documents, especially in cases under special statutes like the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court dwelled over applicability of Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (now replaced by a similar provision in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) that empowers courts to summon any documents “for the purposes of any investigation, inquiry, trial or other proceeding”.
“The right to liberty is paramount. There can be voluminous records, but the accused should have the opportunity to go through them and ask for copies of some documents that can help them...Section 91 is all pervasive. It does not restrict the stage at which documents can be summoned,” said the bench.
This prompted additional solicitor general (ASG) SV Raju, representing the Enforcement Directorate, to argue that while the opportunity to access documents should not be denied, the timing of such access should be considered, given the specific requirements under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as well as the other penal and procedural statutes. Raju also referred to Section 45 in the PMLA, contending that the provision requires the satisfaction of the judge regarding the innocence of the accused for granting bail.
To this, the bench said that for an accused to request bail, they must be able to present materials that demonstrate their innocence. It questioned how the accused could do so without access to the documents relied upon by the prosecution. “Section 91 of the CrPC says ‘other proceedings’ too. Unless he looks at the documents, he would not know whether it’s relevant or not for the purpose of showing his innocence,” it observed.
The court added that interpreting pertinent legal provisions narrowly would undermine the accused’s right to liberty. “If the accused suffers because he didn’t have possession of the documents that you relied on, then it’s not a meaningful opportunity,” remarked the bench, asserting that courts must interpret laws in favor of liberty and ensure that the opportunity provided to the accused is effective.
The court also highlighted the importance of transparency in legal proceedings. “Why can’t everything be transparent? Your officers arrest someone, seize the documents and then say: ‘we are still investigating so we can’t give them’...this is so in majority of cases,” lamented the bench.
It further remarked: “Are we going to be so rigid now that a person is facing prosecution, and we will deny him the documents? Times have changed. People today struggle to get bail even in magistrate triable cases. Ultimately, Article 21 is the framework. Gaps in the law and justice will have to be addressed by this court, if there are any.”
The court warned that if an accused is denied access to crucial documents based on technicalities, it could potentially violate their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
On his part, ASG Raju maintained that inspection of documents could lead to a “roving and fishing inquiry”. He cautioned that granting unrestricted access to all relied and unrelied documents could delay the trial and hamper ongoing investigations.
However, the bench was firm in its stance that, especially at the bail stage, the accused should not be denied access to documents necessary to mount an effective defense.
“There is no reason why at any stage -- anterior to trial or filing of chargesheet, accused cannot be shown documents. You may object, but the courts are responsible for deciding whether these documents should be shared with the accused or not. There cannot be a straitjacket formula to deny them documents in all cases on the grounds that the trial is yet to commence,” added the court, reserving the judgment on the issue.