After granting similar measures in Arvind Kejriwal case, the Supreme Court today obtained interim bail to one Subhash Prasad Yadav – accused in a money laundering case – with the aim of contesting the Jharkhand Assembly elections. With the election scheduled for November 13, Yadav is to be released till November 14, when he will have to surrender before the jail authorities before 5 p.m.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan placed the order in Yadav’s challenge to an order of the Patna High Court. Earlier, the Court had orally ordered evidence to support Yadav’s claim that he is contesting the Jharkhand Assembly elections (from Rashtriya Janata Dal).

Yesterday, Senior Advocate SB Upadhyayfor Yadav, informed that the required documents have been filed. However, Additional Solicitor General SV Rajufor Directorate of Execution, vehemently opposed it to prayers and had time until today to respond.

Today, the ASG claimed that Yadav was guilty of repression. When the judiciary referred to Afzal Ansari (in which the conviction of a BSP MP was stayed, paving the way for restoration of his Lok Sabha membership and allowing him to contest the next elections), the ASG responded that a strong case needed to be made by facts to obtain such relief. He submitted that Section 45 of the PMLA imposes restrictions on grant of interim bail and election campaigning cannot be a criterion on which courts grant interim bail.

The ASG further alleged that Yadav had obtained an order that he could file his nomination paper without making ED a party and the said order was subsequently recalled.

The bench observed that the returning officer should have canceled Yadav’s nomination, but now the situation is different as Yadav has been allowed to contest. He acknowledged that the ASG’s apprehensions about opening the floodgates (if bail is granted for the elections) may be well-founded. However, Yadav has not yet been convicted and there is a presumption of innocence in his favor.

The order was as follows:

“In view of the fact that the bail application filed by the applicant is pending before the High Court, we express no opinion on the merits of the said application. In view of the particular facts and circumstances, the applicant must be released on bail until November 14, 2024, subject to his furnishing sureties to the satisfaction of the special judge before whom the trial is pending. The petitioner must surrender before the jail authorities before 5 p.m. on. November 14. The High Court is requested to consider the ordinary bail application of the petitioner in due course and at the earliest. It goes without saying that the interim release order will have no bearing on the bail application. regular security of the petitioner.

The court clarified that its order in the present case should not be considered as a precedent.

Background

Reportedly, 19 FIRs were initially registered against one Broadson Commodities Pvt Ltd. Subsequently, the Enforcement Directorate registered an ECIR based on the FIRs in 2023.

The allegation against the accused was that they had indulged in illegal sand mining, without issuance of e-transit challans, and caused loss of revenue to the government. It was further averred that the accused generated and acquired proceeds of crime while committing the alleged offences.

After completing the investigation, ED filed a complaint against Yadav (and 2 others) and the Special Court took cognizance of it. Yadav was arrested by ED on March 9, 2024 and he is currently lodged in a Patna jail.

Reportedly, Yadav has filed his nomination as a candidate in the Jharkhand assembly elections and filed a bail application in the Patna High Court to enable him to campaign for the elections.

However, the chances of his bail application being heard before the election date (November 13) appeared to be low. As such, Yadav filed a petition in the High Court, but it was dismissed.

“It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has already filed a regular bail application before this Court which is still pending and knowing this fact, the petitioner has filed the present criminal summons application for interim bail for campaigning in the elections, therefore, it is not the case that it is just and proper for this bench to pass an order in favor of the petitioner.”the High Court said.

Challenging the dismissal order, Yadav approached the Supreme Court. In support of his prayers, he relies on the decision rendered in Arvind Kejriwal v. Enforcement Directoratewhere the Aam Aadmi Party leader was released on interim bail by the Supreme Court itself and was not relegated to the trial court.

It may be added that in 2019, Yadav unsuccessfully contested elections from Chatra Lok Sabha constituency in Jharkhand on the RJD ticket.

The petition was filed via Pankaj Bhagat, Official Advocate.

Case Title: SUBHASH PRASAD YADAV v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 15145/2024