Wednesday, August 17, 2022
154,225FansLike
654,155FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe
Home Constitutional News Supreme Court SG Says Withholding Evidence at Pre-anticipatory Bail Stage Necessary to Make Case Foolproof

SG Says Withholding Evidence at Pre-anticipatory Bail Stage Necessary to Make Case Foolproof

0
SG Says Withholding Evidence at Pre-anticipatory Bail Stage Necessary to Make Case Foolproof
Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

The Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court on Thursday that giving copies of documents to the accused would be disastrous as it would enable the accused to erase all money trails. “Cases like Vijay Mallya and Mehul Choksi show that the case can be impacted with devastating results,” he said.

Giving out the reason for confronting ex-union minister P Chidambaram with evidence, Mehta, who was appearing for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) told the apex court during the hearing in INX Media case that the accused may thereafter erase money trail. “If an accused at large is confronted with the evidence collected, then the agency will have exposed its evidence and witnesses, which will give a chance to the accused to tamper with evidence and erase the money trail,” he said. He added that the ED has the absolute discretion regarding what material to divulge and what to withhold in terms of evidence. If an accused is confronted with evidence at pre-anticipatory bail stage, it will destroy the full case, he said.

“The moment accused is confronted with the evidence the accused can easily erase money trails… all are shell companies, money is parked in the name of individuals and benami properties,” Mehta told the top court bench of Justices R Banumathi and AS Bopanna. “Extent of revealing evidence to accused is the absolute discretion of probe agency. Confronting him with evidence in pre-anticipatory bail stage would destroy the case,” Mehta pointed out.

He said that the “Gravity of an offence is an important factor to be considered while entertaining petitions filed for anticipatory bail,” citing judgments to assert the fact that economic offences are very grave as held by courts in the past. “They (senior advocates representing ex-FM Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi) have argued that gravity of an offence is subjective. PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) offences may not be grave for them but the courts have consistently held that economic offences are grave in nature,” said Mehta.

He also argued how the offence in this particular case is against the economy of the country and how the court has always taken a view that economic offences are the gravest form of offences, irrespective of the punishments they prescribe.

—India Legal Bureau

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.