Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed a criminal appeal against the High Court's order rejecting regular bail to the appellant in a money laundering case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) -- The appellant, a former promoter of Amtek Auto Ltd., was arrested on 09.07.2024 and had been in custody for about 16 months and 20 days -- The Court found that the investigation against him was complete, and trial had not commenced due to delays attributable to the prosecution -- Citing the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court held that prolonged incarceration without trial violated his fundamental rights -- The Court granted bail with conditions, emphasizing that economic offences do not warrant automatic bail denial -- The judgment references multiple precedents on bail in PMLA cases and the importance of liberty in criminal jurisprudence
Headnote
Criminal Law-- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023-- Section 483-- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002(PMLA)-- Section 45-- Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 120B, 420, 406 and 468-- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d)-- Regular bail-- Appellant/accused was a former promoter and non executive director of company-- Allegation of fraud of Rs 385.35 crores & Rs 289 crores-- Allegation that appellant was beneficiary -- Application for bail filed under PMLA Act-- Rejection of application by high court-- Appeal filed before Supreme court for regular bail-- Siphoning of public funds-- 208 prosecution witnesses cited-- Appellant is aged 64 years old-- No likelihood of commencement of trial in near future-- Delay in trial of approximately eight months is attributable to the respondents-- Economic offences cannot be classified as separate class on its own for determining of grant of bail-- Gravity of offence required to be considered while dealing with prayer for regular bail-- Terms of sentence-- Aspect of right of speedy trial required to be considered in favour accused-- Prolonged incarceration period- Maximum sentence is 7 years-- appellant is in custody since last 16 months and 20 days- Long list of witnesses-- Bail granted-- Appeal allowed
Para-- 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) considering prolonged incarceration and delay in trial
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted bail to the appellant subject to conditions including execution of a personal bond of Rs. 5 lakhs with two sureties, surrender of passport, and no interference with witnesses or evidence
Law Points
- Right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to speedy trial
- Prolonged incarceration without trial commencement violates fundamental rights
- Economic offences do not form a separate class for bail determination
- Grant of bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act
- 2002 (PMLA) requires consideration of twin conditions
- Proviso to Section 45 of PMLA applies to certain categories of accused
- Delay in trial attributable to prosecution is a relevant factor for bail
- Custody no longer required if investigation is complete
Case Details
2026 LawText (SC) (01) 13
Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@ S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 15478 of 2025)
SANJAY KUMAR J. , ALOK ARADHE J.
Directorate of Enforcement
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against rejection of regular bail in a money laundering case
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought grant of regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) read with Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
Filing Reason
Appellant was arrested on 09.07.2024 and had been in custody for about 16 months and 20 days without trial commencement, alleging violation of right to speedy trial
Previous Decisions
Special Judge dismissed bail application on 21.01.2025, High Court rejected bail application on 19.08.2025, interim bail was granted on medical grounds from 11.03.2025 to 01.04.2025
Issues
Whether the appellant is entitled to regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) considering prolonged incarceration and delay in trial
Whether the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is violated by the appellant's custody without trial commencement
Whether economic offences form a separate class for bail denial
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued prolonged incarceration of about 16 months and 20 days violated right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21
Appellant contended investigation was complete and only he among 28 individuals was arrested, making custody no longer required
Appellant submitted delay in trial of eight months was attributable to respondent's actions in filing and withdrawing a challenge
Appellant urged economic offences do not form a separate class for bail determination and he is neither a flight risk nor can tamper with evidence
Respondent argued gravity of offence disentitled appellant from bail, alleging he was ultimate beneficiary of a large-scale fraud
Ratio Decidendi
Prolonged incarceration without trial commencement violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India -- Economic offences do not form a separate class for bail denial -- Grant of bail under Section 45 of PMLA requires consideration of factors such as completion of investigation and delay attributable to prosecution -- Custody is not required if investigation is complete and accused is not a flight risk or threat to evidence
Judgment Excerpts
The Court held that the appellant's prolonged incarceration of about 16 months and 20 days, without trial commencement, violated his right to liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India
The Court noted that the investigation qua the appellant was complete, and only he among 28 individuals was arrested, making his custody no longer required
The delay in trial of approximately eight months was attributed to the respondent's actions in filing and later withdrawing a challenge, which deferred proceedings
The Court rejected the argument that economic offences form a separate class for bail denial, citing settled law
Procedural History
FIRs registered on 21.12.2022 for predicate offences -- ECIRs registered on 21.03.2023 for money laundering -- Appellant arrested on 09.07.2024 -- Bail application dismissed by Special Judge on 21.01.2025 -- High Court rejected bail on 19.08.2025 -- Interim bail granted from 11.03.2025 to 01.04.2025 -- Supreme Court granted leave and heard appeal
Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): Section 483
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA): Section 45, Section 50
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Section 120B, Section 420, Section 406, Section 468
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Section 13(2), Section 13(1)(d)
- Constitution of India: Article 21, Article 32
