No Arbitration Agreement, No Arbitrator: Supreme Court Voids Award Made Without Municipal Council's Consent, Calls Entire Proceedings "Coram Non Judice" Post-Disposal Miscellaneous Applications Maintainable Only In Rare Situations; Court Becomes Functus Officio After SLP Dismissal: Supreme Court Vague & Omnibus Allegations Against Relatives In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Nipped In The Bud; 7-Year Delay In FIR Fatal: Supreme Court State Can Withdraw Electricity Duty Exemption For Captive Power Plants In Public Interest But Must Give One-Year Notice Period: Supreme Court DSC Personnel Entitled To Second Pension; Shortfall In Service Up To 12 Months Can Be Condoned: Supreme Court Person Professing Christianity Cannot Claim Scheduled Caste Status To Invoke SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Except Matters One May, But Exclude Justice One Cannot: Supreme Court Restores Arbitral Award, Holds State Cannot Be Judge In Its Own Cause On Disputed Breach When State Requisitions Your Vehicle For Elections And It Kills Someone, The State Pays — Not Your Insurer: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Financial Burden Cannot Defeat Constitutional Right to Just Compensation: Supreme Court Unsigned Charge Is A Curable Irregularity, Won't Vitiate Trial Unless 'Failure Of Justice' Is Shown: Supreme Court Tenant Files Fresh Petition Before Rent Authority After Supreme Court Dismisses SLP, Review And Misc Application — Court Calls It "Gross Abuse of Process", Voids Restoration Order Taxation Law | Exemption For Naphtha Depends On 'Intended Use' At Procurement, Not Actual Exclusive Use: Supreme Court Army's Own Grading System Worked Against Women Officers For Years — Supreme Court Grants Permanent Commission, Pension To Short Service Women Officers

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