Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam

Gender No Ground for Bail in Serious Offences: Supreme Court of India Rejects Bail Appeal of Chhattisgarh Deputy Secretary

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India today dismissed the bail appeal of Saumya Chaurasia, the Deputy Secretary in the Office of the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, in connection with her arrest under charges of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The apex court, led by Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, upheld the High Court of Chhattisgarh's decision to reject her bail application, stating, "No compelling reason for granting bail observed," as noted in paragraph 30 of the judgment.

The bench criticized the appellant for attempting to mislead the court by presenting incorrect statements in the Special Leave Petition (SLP), aimed at challenging the order of the High Court. The judgment, in paragraph 12, stated, "There was a bold attempt made by and on behalf of the appellant to misrepresent the facts for challenging the impugned order."

Further elaborating on the need for accurate representation in legal proceedings, the judgment emphasized the responsibility of advocates in ensuring the sanctity of legal processes. "It is unbelievable that the battery of lawyers... did not notice the apparent fact that when the chargesheet and cognizance order were not in existence before the High Court when the arguments were concluded and the judgment was reserved, non-consideration of the same by the High Court could not be made the basis for challenging the said order in the SLP before this Court," the court observed in paragraph 13.

The court also discussed the discretion under Section 45 of the PMLA regarding the granting of bail to women, highlighting that the involvement of the appellant in serious offences and the evidence against her did not warrant bail despite her gender. The judgment reads, "There is sufficient evidence collected... to prima facie come to the conclusion that the appellant... was actively involved in the offence of Money Laundering as defined in Section 3 of the PMLA" (paragraph 25).

This ruling reinforces the importance of integrity and accuracy in legal representations and the need for the legal community to maintain high standards of professionalism, especially when dealing with cases of significant public interest.

The Supreme Court has also imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant, to be deposited before the Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within two weeks. The judgment, in its finality and depth, sets a precedent for future cases involving money laundering and the professional conduct of advocates in India's highest court.

Date of Decision: 14th December 2023

SAUMYA CHAURASIA VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Latest Legal News