[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Vijay Sopan Machinder vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 6 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:16294
Digitally signed
by LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT GOPAL BA-5435.24.DOCX
GOPAL CHANDAN
CHANDAN Date:
2026.04.06
20:13:57 +0530
lgc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.5435 OF 2024
Vijay Sopan Machinder : Applicant
(Org.Accused No.1)
Versus.
Directorate of Enforcement : Respondent
-----
Mr. Sundeep Karnik for the Applicant.
Mr. Prashant Mishra (Special Counsel for ED) a/w Mr. Bharat
Jadhav, Ms. Ishita Bhaiya, Mr. Krish Kariya and Ms. Chahat
Modi and Ms. Purva Birla for the Respondent No.1 ED.
Mr.Prashant Pandey a/w Mr. Dinesh Jadhwani, Ms. Ridhima
Mangaonkar and Ms. Sunati Gupta i/by W3Legal for the
Intervenor.
-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATED : 06 APRIL 2026
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Sundeep Karnik, learned Advocate for the
Applicant, Mr. Prashant Mishra learned Special Counsel for
Respondent- Directorate of Enforcement and Mr. Prashant
Pandey, learned Advocate for the Intervenor.
2. This Application under Section 483 of the Bhartiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ("BNSS"), is filed by the
BA-5435.24.DOCX
Applicant seeking bail in connection with ECIR No. ECIR/
MBZO-I/17/2023 registered by the Respondent, for offences
punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act 2002).
3. Material facts for the consideration of this bail
application are that Crime No. 837 of 2021 was registered
against the Applicant on 14.12.2021 at Oshiwara Police
Station under Sections 406, 409, 420, and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"), and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 13 of
the Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the
Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer)
Act, 1963 ("MOFA"). It was subsequently transferred to EOW
Mumbai and renumbered as C.R. No. 105 of 2021, with
Sections 465, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, along with
Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of
Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Act, 1999 ("MPID"),
being added.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the Applicant, in his
capacity as a Director of Ornate Spaces Private Limited,
executed a Tripartite Agreement on 18.05.2010 with MHADA
and the UTI Employees Society for the construction of 152
flats for UTI employees, to be completed within 54 months of
obtaining the completion certificate. Applicant, despite
collecting amounts, failed and neglected to fulfil this
obligation. Applicant has deceived the intended buyers of the
flats, unlawfully sold flats to others, and forged
BA-5435.24.DOCX
documents. Applicant has used the proceeds of crime for
personal expenses, vehicle purchases, cash withdrawals,
investment in a gym business, and other project-related costs.
5. Respondent registered an ECIR bearing No.
ECIR/MBZO-I/17/2023 based on the predicate offence, i.e.
C.R. No. 105 of 2021, registered with EOW, Mumbai, to
investigate the role of the Applicant in the money laundering
offence. Said ECIR is registered as Special Case No. 422 of
2024 and is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge,
designated as a Special Court under the PML Act 2002, City
Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai (hereafter "Special Court").
There are three accused persons in the present case. Applicant
is Accused No. 1. Wife of the Applicant is Accused No.2,
whereas their son is Accused No.
6. The Applicant was arrested on 03.01.2024 and remains
incarcerated.
7. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were not arrested in ECIR bearing
No. ECIR/MBZO-I/17/2023.
8. Bail Application at Exhibit-5 in PMLA SPL Case No.422
of 2024 filed by the Applicant was rejected by the Special
Court on 05.12.2024.
9. Mr. Sundeep Karnik, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
submits that the Applicant seeks bail in PMLA Special Case
No. 422 of 2024 on the sole ground of prolonged
incarceration. He submits that the Applicant has been in jail
BA-5435.24.DOCX
since 03.01.2024. He submits that, to date, the charge has not
been framed in PMLA Special Case No. 422 of 2024. He
submits that, as of now, there is no compliance with Section
44 (1)(c) of the PML Act 2002. He mentions that the charge
sheet spans 38 volumes with 14253 pages, and that there are
14 prosecution witnesses in the case. He submits that the
maximum punishment for the crime in PMLA Special Case No.
422 of 2024 is 7 years.
10. Mr. Prashant Mishra, learned Special Counsel for the
Respondent-ED, in addition to oral submissions, has tendered
brief written submissions dated 02.04.2026. He, by referring
to the chart in para no. 12 of the written submissions, submits
that the delay in the commencement of the trial is not
attributable to the prosecution. He submits that the delay in
the present proceedings would be attributable to Accused
No.2 and Accused No.3. He submits that the maximum
period of punishment for the economic offence against the
Applicant in PMLA Special Case No. 422 of 2024 is 7 years.
He submits that the computation of the period of release
under Section 479 (1) of the BNSS should be one-third of 7
years, approximately 2 years and 4 months. Therefore, he
submits that the long incarceration period claimed by the
Applicant would only be relevant after 2 years and 4 months
of imprisonment. He submits that the Applicant has served 2
years and 3 months in jail and therefore does not qualify for
bail on the grounds of prolonged incarceration.
BA-5435.24.DOCX
11. Mr. Prashant Pandey, the learned Advocate for the
Intervenor, submits that the Applicant has other cases pending
against him. He submits that the material on record indicates
the Applicant's guilt in the crime. He argues that the delay in
proceedings is caused by the Applicant. He explains that the
Intervenor is the affected party and the original complainant.
He submits that the Intervenor has a reasonable apprehension
that the Applicant will flee the country if released on bail.
Therefore, he opposes bail.
12. Mr. Sundeep Karnik, learned Advocate for the Applicant
in the rejoinder, submits that the Applicant has roots in this
country and that his family is also based here. He submits that
if this Court grants bail, the Applicant will comply with and
abide by any conditions the Court considers appropriate to
impose.
13. Heard arguments and perused the records.
14. Mr. Sundeep Karnik, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
has limited the ground for bail due to the prolonged
incarceration.
15. Though Mr. Prashant Mishra, the learned Special
Counsel for the Respondent-ED, referring to the chart in
paragraph 12 of his written submissions dated 02.04.2026,
argued that the delay in commencing the trial is not
attributable to the Respondent, he was unable to point out
any material from the record of PMLA Special Case No. 422 of
BA-5435.24.DOCX
2024 indicating that the delay in starting the trial is due to the
Applicant. Even otherwise, the Applicant would not have
gained from causing delay, especially since he is in jail.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Dham
v. Enforcement Directorate1, where the offence was an
economic offence with a maximum punishment of 7 years,
and the accused had been jailed for 16 months and 20 days,
observed in paragraph Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 as follows:-
"15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to
the rival submissions and have carefully perused the
record. The court while dealing with the prayer for grant
of bail has to consider gravity of offence, which has to be
ascertained in the facts and circumstances of each case.
One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of
offences is also the term of sentence i.e., prescribed for the
offence, the accused is alleged to have committed5. The
court has also to take into account the object of the special
Act, the gravity of offence and the attending circumstances
along with period of sentence. All economic offences
cannot be classified into one group as it may involve
various activities and may differ from one case to another.
Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the Court to
categorize all the offences into one group and deny bail on
that basis6. It is well settled that if the State or any
prosecuting agency including, the court, concerned has no
wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of
an accused, to have a speedy trial as enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution, then the State or any other
prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on
the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21
of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the
crime7. The aforesaid proposition was quoted with
approval by another two-Judge Bench of this Court and it
was held that long period of incarceration for around 17
months and the trial not even having commenced, the
appellant in that case has been deprived of his right to
speedy trial.
16. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in V. Senthil
Balaji's case9 has held that under the statutes such as
2026 SCC OnLine SC 30
BA-5435.24.DOCX
PMLA, where maximum sentence is seven years,
prolonged incarceration pending trial may warrant grant
of bail by Constitutional Courts, if there is no likelihood of
the trial concluding within a reasonable time. Statutory
restrictions cannot be permitted to result in indefinite
pretrial detention in violation of Article 21.
17. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Padam
Chand Jain (supra), reiterated that prolonged
incarceration cannot be allowed to convert pretrial
detention into punishment and that documentary evidence
already seized by the prosecution eliminates the possibility
of tampering with the same.
18. The right to speedy trial, enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature
of the offence. Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial,
without commencement or reasonable progress of trial,
cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting
pretrial detention into form of punishment. Economic
offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and
fact, and therefore cannot be treated as homogeneous
class warranting a blanket denial of bail.
19. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled
parameters with regard to exercise of jurisdiction for grant
of bail in economic offences, we now advert to the facts of
the case in hand. The appellant has joined the
investigation even prior to his arrest i.e., 19.06.2024 and
02.07.2024 as well as on 09.07.2024. Thus, he has
cooperated with the investigation. Out of 28 individuals,
only the appellant has been arrested. The order dated
20.08.2025 of the Special Court records the submission of
ED that investigation qua the appellant has concluded.
The maximum sentence which can be imposed on the
appellant is seven years. The appellant is in custody for
past around 16 months and 20 days. It is pertinent to note
that various Benches of this Court, while taking into
account the period of incarceration which ranges from 3
months to 17 months in several cases have granted bail to
the appellants therein10. In the instant case, no
cognizance has been taken on the prosecution complaint
and the proceeding is at the stage of scrutiny of
documents. No material has been placed on record to
show the fate of the application filed by the ED on
27.09.2025 seeking day-to-day hearing even after period
of approximately three months has expired. There are 210
witnesses to be examined in the proceeding. There is no
likelihood of trial commencing in the near future. The
continued incarceration in such circumstances, particularly
where the evidence which is primarily documentary in
nature, is already in custody of the prosecution, violates
BA-5435.24.DOCX
the right of the appellant to speedy trial under Article 21
of the Constitution of India."
17. The charge in Special Case No. 422 of 2024 has not yet
been framed. There is no likelihood that the trial will
commence soon. The Applicant has been in jail for nearly 27
months since his arrest. The maximum punishment in PMLA
Special Case No. 422 of 2024 is 7 years. As Mr. Sundeep
Karnik stated, the charge sheet is voluminous, and the
prosecution has listed 14 witnesses. Therefore, the trial is
expected to take a substantial amount of time to conclude.
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar @ Bhanu
Vs. State of Punjab2 regarding an accused charged with
offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act, 1959,
made the following observations:-
"5. Prosecution proposes to examine 23 witnesses to drive
home the charges against the appellant, but none has been
examined. Thus, the trial is likely to take some time to
conclude.
6. Almost two years have passed since the appellant was
arrested without trial having commenced and conclusion
thereof nowhere being in sight. Incarceration without trial
amounts to punishment."
19. Mr. Prashant Mishra, learned Special Counsel for the
Respondent, has not raised any concern about the Applicant
influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence or failing to
appear for trial in PMLA Special Case No. 422 of 2024, either
in his oral or written submission dated 02.04.2026.
Order dated 13 March 2026 in Petition Special Leave to Appeal (Cri)
18775/2025.
BA-5435.24.DOCX
20. Considering the facts of the case at hand and the
pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind
Dham (supra) and Pradeep Kumar @ Bhanu (supra), the
Applicant is entitled to bail on the sole ground of his long
incarceration and the delay in the commencement of trial in
Special Case No.422 of 2024. Further detention of the
Applicant pending trial is not necessary.
21. The apprehension expressed by Mr. Prashant Pandey,
learned Advocate for the Intervener, can be allayed by
imposing conditions on the Applicant's travel.
22. This Application is therefore allowed on the following
conditions:-
(a) Applicant is directed to be released on bail in
connection with Crime ECIR No. ECIR/
MBZO-I/17/2023 (Special Case No.422 of 2024)
upon furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.
5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) with one or
two local sureties in the like amount of Rs.
5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only), to the
satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge
Designated as Special Court under the PML Act,
2002, City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai.
(b) Applicant shall report to the Investigation Officer,
Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai, once a
month, i.e. on the first Saturday of each month
BA-5435.24.DOCX
from 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 p.m., till the conclusion
of the trial in PMLA Special Case No. 422 of 2024.
(c) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person/s
acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade
such person/s from disclosing the facts to the
Court or any police officer.
(d) Applicant shall not tamper with evidence in any
manner.
(e) The Applicant shall deposit his passport with the
Court of the Additional Sessions Judge designated
as the Special Court under the PML Act, 2002, at
the City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai, in
Special Case No. 422 of 2024, within three (3)
days of his release from jail.
(f ) Applicant shall, within three (3) days of release
from jail, provide the Investigation Officer,
Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai, with his
residential address along with proof, his contact
numbers, and email, and must inform the
Investigating Officer of any changes to this
information from time to time.
(g) The Applicant shall not travel outside the State of
BA-5435.24.DOCX
Maharashtra without obtaining prior written
permission from the Investigation Officer,
Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai.
(h) The Applicant shall appear before the Additional
Sessions Judge designated as the Special Court
under the PML Act, 2002, at the City Civil &
Sessions Court, Mumbai, on each and every date
fixed in Special Case No. 422 of 2024, unless
specifically exempted by the Court. If the
Applicant abstains from attending the proceedings
without justifiable cause, that could also be seen
as a breach of the bail condition and the Special
Court under the PML Act, 2002, at the City Civil &
Sessions Court, Mumbai, will be free to pass
appropriate orders.
23. Mr. Sundeep Karnik, learned Advocate for the Applicant,
submits that the Applicant may be permitted to furnish a cash
surety of Rs. 5,00,000/- instead of the solvent surety for a
period of two weeks. Mr. Sundeep Karnik undertakes that the
solvent surety will be furnished within two weeks from today.
Permission is granted. The statement made by Mr. Sundeep
Karnik is treated as an undertaking to the court. A cash surety
of Rs. 5,00,000/- shall be accepted in lieu of the solvent surety
for two weeks. No extension will be granted. Failure to furnish
a solvent surety within two weeks from today will be deemed
BA-5435.24.DOCX
a breach of bail conditions, and the Special Court under the
PML Act, 2002, at the City Civil & Sessions Court, Mumbai,
will be free to pass appropriate orders.
24. Criminal Application No.5435 of 2024 is disposed of.
(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
