[Cites 61, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
G T Dinesh Kumar vs Director Of Enforcement on 20 January, 2026
Author: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
CRL.P No. 14793 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14793 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
G. T. DINESH KUMAR
S/O THIPPERUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
FLAT NO.A1-107, BLOCK-A,
VAISHNAVI NORTH, HEBBAL,
BENGALURU-560024
(CURRENTLY PETITIONER IS IN
JUDICIAL CUSTODY FROM 16.09.2025)
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANDESH J CHOUTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. MADESH V M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT
Digitally REP. BY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
signed by GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
VIDYA G R
Location: BENGALURU ZONAL OFFICE,
HIGH 3RD FLOOR, B BLOCK, BMTC,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA SHANTHINAGARA-TTMC,
K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA,
BENGALURU-560 027.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ARVIND KAMATH, ADDL. SOLICITOR GENERAL A/W
SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF THE CODE
OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (SECTION 483 OF BNSS,
2023) R/W 45 OF PMLA ACT, 2002 PRAYING THAT TO RELEASE
THE PETITIONER FROM CUSTODY IN THE CASE REGISTERED
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
BY THE RESPONDENT IN ECIR/BGZO/25/2024 REGISTERED BY
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE PENDING ON THE FILE OF
HONBLE LXXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-82) (SPECIAL COURT EXCLUSIVELY
TO DEAL WITH CRIMINAL CASES RELATED TO ELECTED
FORMER AND SITTING MPS/MLAS IN THE STATE OF
KARNATAKA) FOR THE O/P/U/S 45 OF PMLA ACT AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 18.12.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV
CAV ORDER
S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV. J
This Order has been divided into the following
Sections to facilitate analysis:
I BRIEF FACTS 3 - 12
II TWIN CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF BAIL UNDER 12 - 26
SECTION 45 OF THE PMLA
III OTHER CONTENTIONS 26 - 28
IV LEGALITY REGARDING PROCEDURE FOLLOWED 28 - 30
DURING ARREST
V DEFAULT BAIL 31 - 41
VI MEDICAL BAIL 41 - 43
VII LONG INCARCERATION AND DELAYED TRIAL AS A 43 - 66
CONSIDERATION FOR GRANT OF BAIL
VIII CONCLUSION 67 - 71
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
The present petition has been filed seeking to release
the petitioner from custody in the case registered by the
respondent-Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter
referred to as 'ED') in Case No.ECIR/BGZO/25/2024
pending on the file of LXXXI Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge and Special Court for Trial of MPs/MLAs
Cases at Bengaluru (CCH-82).
[I] BRIEF FACTS:-
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner has been
arraigned as an accused in Case No.ECIR/BGZO/25/2024
('hereinafter referred to as 'ECIR'). It is made out from
the records that initially, a Private Complaint came to be
filed in PCR No.28/2024 as well as FIR in Crime
No.11/2024 which was registered by the Karnataka
Lokayukta Police, Mysuru. The FIR has been registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 166, 403,
406, 420, 426, 465, 468, 340, 351 of IPC, 1860 read with
Sections 9 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 ['P.C. Act' for brevity] and read with Sections 3, 53
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
and 54 of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions
Act, 1988 and read with Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka
Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011.
3. It is asserted that pursuant to PCR No.28/2024
(Crime No.11/2024), the Karnataka Lokayukta Police,
Mysuru has filed 'B' Final Report only against accused
Nos.1 to 4 in the PCR and had sought permission to
conduct further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ['Cr.P.C.' for
brevity].
4. The Court, while keeping open acceptance or
rejection of 'B' Final Report had adjourned the
proceedings. In the interregnum, Case No.ECIR/BGZO/
25/2024 was registered on 01.10.2024 for the scheduled
offences punishable under the Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 ['PMLA' for brevity].
5. It is stated that there had been search under
Section 17 of PMLA by the respondent - 'ED' in the house
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
of the petitioner on 18.10.2024, that the respondent-'ED'
has recorded the statement of Mr. Prashant Raju, who is
the Personal Assistant of petitioner, that on 28.10.2024,
the respondent - 'ED' had conducted search and seizure
under Section 17 of PMLA in the house of father-in-law
and brother-in-law of the petitioner and Panchanama was
drawn, that the respondent - 'ED' had also conducted
search and seizure by exercise of power under Section 17
of PMLA in the house of accused from 28.10.2024 to
29.10.2024, that the statement of petitioner was recorded
on 09.11.2024 and 20.11.2024 and accordingly, the
investigation was conducted.
6. It is submitted that the respondent - 'ED' has
recorded the statement of accused under Section 17(1)(f)
of PMLA on 16.09.2025 and on the same day, the
petitioner was arrested and remanded for custody and
subsequently he has been remanded to judicial custody
from 29.09.2025 onwards.
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
7. The petitioner had filed an application seeking
enlargement on bail, which however, has been rejected.
In light of the same, the petitioner is now seeking to be
enlarged on bail.
8. Insofar as the grant of bail under the provisions
of PMLA, Section 45 stipulates that notwithstanding
anything contained under Cr.P.C., no person accused of an
offence shall be released on bail, unless (a) the Public
Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the
application for bail and (b) the Court is satisfied that there
are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty
of such offence and not likely to commit any offence while
on bail.
9. It may also be necessary to keep in mind the
provision of Section 19 of PMLA which refers to the power
of arrest and specifies that the arrest could be resorted to,
if the Authorized Officer on the basis of material in his
possession has reason to believe that any person has been
guilty of an offence punishable under the PMLA. The said
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
provision further stipulates that upon arrest, the accused
must be informed of the grounds of such arrest. Apart
from Section 45 of PMLA, Section 19 of PMLA would be of
relevance, as the petitioner has raised a contention
regarding violation of Section 19 of PMLA while resorting
to arrest and other procedural lapses in such process of
arrest warranting release on bail irrespective of the
compliance under Section 45 of PMLA.
10. It is necessary to also note that an application
under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. read with Section 45 of
PMLA seeking to be enlarged on statutory/default bail on
the ground that the respondent - 'ED' had failed to file a
complete and final Prosecution Complaint within the
statutory period.
11. The petitioner's contentions in the petition were
essentially on the grounds:-
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
(i) That the investigation of the predicate offence
not having concluded, the Prosecution ought not to have
proceeded to file the Prosecution Complaint;
(ii) That the PMLA offence is not a stand alone
offence and is intertwined with the predicate offence and
accordingly, the proceedings under the PMLA ought to
have been deferred till Final Report was filed in the
predicate offence;
(iii) That the criminal activity relating to predicate
offence could not have been adjudicated upon by the
investigating machinery under the PMLA;
(iv) That the Former Commissioner of MUDA Sri
D.B.Natesh has had the summons in proceedings under
PMLA quashed as per the order dated 27.01.2025 passed
in W.P.No.32956/2024 [GM-RES];
(v) That the proceedings against others stated to
have been involved in money laundering have been stayed
by orders passed in petitions filed challenging the
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
summons issued (details of the proceedings mentioned at
para-24 of the memorandum of petition);
(vi) That there have been procedural lapses during
the procedure of arrest;
(vii) That the petitioner has co-operated with the
investigation by appearing on relevant dates;
(viii) That the Tripod Test for grant of bail was
satisfied;
(ix) That the petitioner has been continuing under
prolonged incarceration and there is no further necessity
of continuing him in incarceration after Final Report is
filed;
(x) That the petitioner has been singled out, while
the other alleged co-accused have not been arrested;
(xi) That there is a possibility of delayed trial, as
investigation is pending in respect of the predicate offence
though FIR was registered on 27.09.2024;
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
(xii) That there has been no incriminatory material
seized from the petitioner during search.
(xiii) Though the predicate offence that was made
out consequent to FIR lodged pursuant to PCR was as
regards body of offenders, including petitioner's relatives,
real estate agents, and private persons, however, the
Prosecution Complaint was filed only vis-à-vis the
petitioner solely with the view to prevent the petitioner
from obtaining default bail.
(xiv) A contention was also raised that the petitioner
was entitled for bail on medical grounds.
12. The respondent - 'ED', on the other hand, has
taken a stand contending that the proceedings under PMLA
are not necessarily tied to the predicate offence, that once
an FIR is registered, the proceedings under PMLA can
continue. It is contended that unless the conditions
mentioned by the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
Choudhary and Others v. Union of India and Others1
[Vijay Madanlal Choudhary] are satisfied, viz., where
there is acquittal on merits after trial as regards the
predicate offence, when the person accused of the
predicate offence is absolved from the allegations on
merits, when it is established through evidence that the
property in question was rightfully owned by the person
and was not derived from any criminal activity and only
under such enumerated circumstances it could be said that
the proceedings under PMLA would come to a close.
Such conditions, it is submitted, are not found in the
present case.
13. The respondent - 'ED' has further contended
that there is substantial evidence in establishing the
involvement of accused, that the grounds of arrest and
reasons to believe are detailed and sufficient, that in light
of the statutory presumption under Section 24 of PMLA
and the mandatory twin conditions under Section 45 of
(2023) 12 SCC 1
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
PMLA, no grounds are made out to enlarge the petitioner
on bail.
14. It is also contended that no grounds are made
out for enlarging the petitioner on default bail on the
ground of incomplete chargesheet and once a Final Report
has been filed in the form of Prosecution Complaint (in
the present case, complaint is to be taken as referring to
chargesheet), the right of claiming default bail does not
arise.
15. Various other contentions have also been
raised, including that the findings of Special Court on the
bail application are detailed and that the Economic
Offences warrant a differential approach in case of bail.
[II] TWIN CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF BAIL UNDER
SECTION 45 OF THE PMLA :-
16. While the statutory mandate of Section 45 of
PMLA lays down two essential requirements to be fulfilled
for grant of bail which are referred to as twin conditions,
viz., (i) there are reasonable grounds for believing that the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
accused is not guilty of such offence; and (ii) accused is
not likely to commit an offence while on bail. However,
such requirement must not be taken to require findings to
be recorded based upon the burden of proof which is of a
higher requirement, i.e. as may be required in the case of
judgment of conviction.
17. The observations made in Vijay Madanlal
Choudhary (supra) would be of relevance in the present
context. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision is
extracted hereinbelow:-
"288. The successive decisions of this Court dealing
with analogous provision have stated that the court at
the stage of considering the application for grant of
bail, is expected to consider the question from the
angle as to whether the accused was possessed of the
requisite mens rea. The court is not required to record
a positive finding that the accused had not committed
an offence under the Act. The court ought to maintain
a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal
and conviction and an order granting bail much before
commencement of trial. The duty of the court at this
stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to
arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
Further, the court is required to record a finding as to
the possibility of the accused committing a crime
which is an offence under the Act after grant of bail.
302. It is important to note that the twin conditions
provided under Section 45 of the 2002 Act, though
restrict the right of the accused to grant of bail, but it
cannot be said that the conditions provided under
Section 45 impose absolute restraint on the grant of
bail. The discretion vests in the court which is not
arbitrary or irrational but judicial, guided by the
principles of law as provided under Section 45 of the
2002 Act. While dealing with a similar provision
prescribing twin conditions in MCOCA, this Court
in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma2, held as under :
(SCC pp. 318-19, paras 44-46)
"44. The wording of Section 21(4), in our
opinion, does not lead to the conclusion that the
court must arrive at a positive finding that the
applicant for bail has not committed an offence
under the Act. If such a construction is placed,
the court intending to grant bail must arrive at a
finding that the applicant has not committed
such an offence. In such an event, it will be
impossible for the prosecution to obtain a
judgment of conviction of the applicant. Such
cannot be the intention of the
(2005) 5 SCC 294
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
legislature. Section 21(4) of MCOCA, therefore,
must be construed reasonably. It must be so
construed that the court is able to maintain a
delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal
and conviction and an order granting bail much
before commencement of trial. Similarly, the
court will be required to record a finding as to
the possibility of his committing a crime after
grant of bail. However, such an offence in futuro
must be an offence under the Act and not any
other offence. Since it is difficult to predict the
future conduct of an accused, the court must
necessarily consider this aspect of the matter
having regard to the antecedents of the accused,
his propensities and the nature and manner in
which he is alleged to have committed the
offence.
45. It is, furthermore, trite that for the purpose
of considering an application for grant of bail,
although detailed reasons are not necessary to
be assigned, the order granting bail must
demonstrate application of mind at least in
serious cases as to why the applicant has been
granted or denied the privilege of bail.
46. The duty of the court at this stage is not to
weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at
a finding on the basis of broad probabilities.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
However, while dealing with a special statute
like MCOCA having regard to the provisions
contained in sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the
Act, the court may have to probe into the matter
deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding
that the materials collected against the accused
during the investigation may not justify a
judgment of conviction. The findings recorded by
the court while granting or refusing bail
undoubtedly would be tentative in nature, which
may not have any bearing on the merit of the
case and the trial court would, thus, be free to
decide the case on the basis of evidence
adduced at the trial, without in any manner
being prejudiced thereby."
(emphasis supplied)
303. We are in agreement with the observation
made by the Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing
Sharma3. The Court while dealing with the application
for grant of bail need not delve deep into the merits of
the case and only a view of the court based on
available material on record is required. The court will
not weigh the evidence to find the guilt of the accused
which is, of course, the work of the trial court. The
court is only required to place its view based on
probability on the basis of reasonable material
Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra - (2005) 5 SCC 294
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
collected during investigation and the said view will
not be taken into consideration by the trial court in
recording its finding of the guilt or acquittal during trial
which is based on the evidence adduced during the
trial. As explained by this Court in Nimmagadda
Prasad4, the words used in Section 45 of the 2002 Act
are "reasonable grounds for believing" which means
the court has to see only if there is a genuine case
against the accused and the prosecution is not
required to prove the charge beyond reasonable
doubt."
18. Accordingly, it is clear that the Court while
considering grant of bail on the twin conditions under
Section 45 of PMLA is to arrive at a finding on the basis of
broad probabilities, while being fully conscious that the
stage at which such findings are being made is on the
basis of pre-trial stage investigation records and
pleadings. It is also a settled position that such findings
required to be made while referring to the twin tests of
Section 45 of PMLA would be tentative and would not
Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
prejudice the conclusive findings still to be arrived at after
trial.
19. The nature of such findings in a factual matrix
is best elucidated by referring to the findings on prima
facie case vis-à-vis twin tests of Section 45 of PMLA in the
case of Manish Sisodia-1 (supra) at paras-24 to 28
which would demonstrate the manner in which the Court
had recorded findings as regards Section 45 of PMLA in the
particular factual context.
20. The Prosecution Complaint is detailed and
makes out a case against the petitioner herein. As
regards prima facie case made out regarding the money
laundering offence under Section 3 of PMLA, the
investigation is stated to have revealed the following:-
(i) The illegal allotment of sites in the guise of
allotment of sites in lieu of compensation made
to the ineligible beneficiaries;
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
(ii) Such allotment was made on the basis of
false facts, forgery, cheating and use of undue
influence;
(iii) The illegally allotted sites constitute the
proceeds of crime;
(iv) Such proceeds of crime were
layered/routed through Power of Attorney, Sale
Deeds to obfuscate the true nature of proceeds
of crime;
(v) The criminal activities associated with the
scheduled offence included undue
gratification/bribe obtained by accused persons
for making the illegal allotment;
(vi) Charts are enclosed evidencing the
manner of commission of offences;
21. A reference is made to the illegal allotment of
48 sites in favour of Chamundeshwari Nagara Sarvodaya
Sangha, all of which were made by G.T.Dinesh Kumar, the
petitioner herein (See para-11.7 of Prosecution
Complaint).
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
22. It is stated that when G.T. Dinesh Kumar was
confronted regarding such illegalities during custody, he
has admitted that Government of Karnataka did not grant
any permission to allot sites to the said Chamundeshwari
Nagara Sarvodaya Sangha though MUDA had requested.
It is specifically observed that he has not provided any
"plausible answers to the fact that 03 out of 48 sites
allotted in the case has been obtained by his relatives
through Sale Agreements without paying any money and
also the fact that huge sums of money were received by
his relatives from Sri N. Manjunath, who is a major
beneficiary of illegal allotment in this case." (See para-
11.7(d) of Prosecution Complaint).
23. It is specifically recorded in the Prosecution
Complaint that the allotment of sites to the aforesaid
Chamundeshwari Nagara Sarvodaya Sangha have been
obtained through GPA by real estate businessman
Sri N. Manjunath and one of the allottees of site No.65
Smt.J.S.Sunanda Devi had submitted to the adjudicating
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
authority that the site was obtained by Sri N. Manjunath
under undue pressure [see para-11.7(f) of Prosecution
Complaint].
24. It is narrated that, there is a specific finding
that the sites allotted to Chamundeshwari Nagara
Sarvodaya Sangha have been transferred to the close
relatives and associates of the petitioner, G.T.Dinesh
Kumar through Sale Agreements and the details are
provided at para-11.7(i) of the Prosecution Complaint and
the further assertion that the amount for such Agreement
was paid by Sri N. Manjunath is evidenced by the Bank
payments by way of Demand Draft [see para-11.7(j) of
the Prosecution Complaint].
25. It is also stated that the said Sri N. Manjunath
in his statement under Section 50 of PMLA has not given
any explanation for such payments made.
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
26. It is made out that huge payments have been
made to the relatives of G.T. Dinesh Kumar by N.
Manjunath including to maternal grandfather of wife of
G.T. Dinesh Kumar, brother of mother-in-law of
G.T. Dinesh Kumar, maternal grandmother of wife of
G.T. Dinesh Kumar and sister of mother-in-law of
G.T. Dinesh Kumar and no explanation has been made as
regards such payments.
27. Such details referred to above would make out
an offence of money laundering in terms of the ingredients
of the offence. The Flow Chart reflecting generation,
layering, routing and integration of proceeds of crime at
para-11.1 of the Prosecution Complaint is self-explanatory,
which is extracted as below:-
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
Criminal activities associated with Illegal allotment of Sites in the form
Scheduled Offence for generation of of compensation in ineligible cases
Proceeds of by officers and officials of MUDA in
Crime. collusion with real estate
businessmen/Influential
persons/private persons.
Layering/routing of Proceeds of Transfer of sites through General
Crime Power of Attorney/Sale
Agreement/Sale Deeds/Gift
Deeds/Settlement Deeds
Possession and use of Proceeds of Possession and use of illegally
Crime allotted MUDA sites.
Sale of the sites and projecting the
Projection or claiming as untainted profits as income or projecting the
property. sites as untainted i.e. compensation
received from MUDA.
28. On similar lines, it is stated that offence has
been made out in the case of Chamundeshwari Nagara
Sarvodaya Sangha. A reference is also made to the illegal
allotments to Cathedral Parish Society, JSS MVP
Employees House Building Co-operative Society (EHBCS),
Smt. Neelamma and Others, K. Chandra, R. Jayamma,
and A. Papanna. The Prosecution Complaint contains the
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
details as regards each of the said illegal allotment made
and includes the aspect of proceeds of crime, undue
gratification, payments made to relatives illustrated by
appropriate Flow Charts and tabular depictions.
29. Para-13 of the Prosecution Complaint discusses
the specific role of G.T.Dinesh Kumar, the petitioner herein
as regards the offence of money laundering as also the
aspect of proceeds of crime, there is a detailed table
explaining the alleged proceeds of crime pursuant to illegal
allotments made, which is extracted below:-
PAO No. No. of Sites Value
02/2025 160 Rs.81.91 Crores
17.01.2025
14/2025 92 Rs.36.29 Crores
09.06.2025
28/2025 31 Rs.20.60 Crores
04.10.2025
30. The further details of proceeds of crime are
detailed in para-13 of the Prosecution Complaint and the
Table illustrating the same is extracted below:-
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
Sl. PoC obtained in the case Value of Poc
No. (in Rs.)
1 Cash collected 34,65,000
2 Misuse of high security bond papers 8,28,80,000
3 Members of Chamundeshwari Nagara 5,86,80,000
Sarvodaya Sangha
4 Shri Abdul Waheed 3,62,20,000
5 Cathedral Parish Society 1,70,00,000
6 Smt.Ningamma (Sy.No.157/1 in 1,13,30,000
Hinkal Village)
7 JSS MVP EHBCS 1,02,74,000
8 Smt.Ningamma (incentive allotment) 49,00,000
Total 22,47,49,000
31. The petitioner has however not specifically
adverted to the factual contents of the Prosecution
Complaint, while contending that the Prosecution
Complaint itself was filed during the pendency of the
present proceedings. However, the filing of the
Prosecution Complaint is an aspect that needs to be
adverted to and taken note of, though filed subsequent to
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
the petition. The Prosecution Complaint crystallises the
stand of the Prosecution.
[III] OTHER CONTENTIONS:-
32. As regards other contentions, the same are
dealt with infra. As regards the contention relating to the
proceedings under PMLA having overshot by investigation
of the predicate offence, it could be stated that the legal
requirement of a First Information Report would be
sufficient for the progress of proceedings under PMLA.
The proceedings under PMLA would fail only if the
proceedings relating to the predicate offence vis-à-vis the
accused has resulted in discharge/acquittal or quashment
of the predicate offence as against the accused. In the
absence of such termination of such proceedings of the
predicate offence, it could be stated that there is no bar
for continuance of the proceedings under PMLA.
33. It would also be necessary to notice that the
present proceedings being limited to grant of bail, the
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
finding regarding prima facie case as regards the offence
of money laundering cannot result in conversion of present
petition to one under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. / Section 528
of BNSS or petition to discharge and accordingly, a
detailed consideration of the ingredients of the offence of
money laundering, including adjudication relating to
criminal activity in relation to scheduled offence need not
be entertained.
34. Insofar as the contention that the petitioner is
entitled to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity, it
must be noticed that the orders relied on by the petitioner
are the orders passed in exercise of Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
quashing the summons and proceedings. The ground of
parity must rest on bail to a co-accused and cannot be
permissible to take note of the orders passed quashing the
proceedings against other co-accused.
35. The mere stay of proceedings against other
accused would be no ground to seek for enlargement of
bail and considerations for enlargement of bail are distinct.
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
36. At this stage of pre-trial proceedings looking
into the detailed narration made regarding the offence of
money laundering, criminal activity in relation to
scheduled offence, proceeds of crime, the Court is not in a
position to record a finding that there are no reasonable
grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of
such offence. Though various contentions have been
raised by the learned counsel appearing for accused,
suffice it to state that the contents of Prosecution
Complaint could not permit negativing the prima facie role
of the petitioner in the commission of offence.
[IV] LEGALITY REGARDING PROCEDURE FOLLOWED DURING
ARREST:-
37. The petitioner has also raised contentions
regarding the validity of arrest on various grounds and had
submitted that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on
bail.
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
38. The identical contentions raised before the trial
Court has been rejected by a well reasoned order and
relevant findings are made at paras-13 to 25 of the order
rejecting bail. No doubt, the present proceedings are in
the nature of concurrent jurisdiction requiring fresh
consideration. However, the elaborate discussion and
sound reasoning appeals to the Court and this Court is in
broad agreement with the observations made.
39. As regards the contention that the satisfaction
of the Officer that he has reasons to believe that the
accused is guilty of an offence punishable under the Act
and only there upon power of arrest could be exercised,
the trial Court after having perused the records has stated
that the remand application and grounds of arrest when
perused would make out a case for exercise of power of
arrest. This Court has no reason to disagree with such
finding and endorses such conclusion.
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
40. The trial Court has also recorded a finding after
consideration that grounds of arrest are communicated,
that reasons for arrest are also communicated.
41. Further, the trial Court at para-21 has referred
to the grounds of arrest and in para-22 regarding reasons
to believe. A finding has been recorded as regards non-
circumvention of Section 19 of PMLA.
42. The remand applications are detailed and record
that grounds of arrest have been communicated and
acknowledged by him.
43. At paragraphs-14 to 18 of the order of the trial
Court, there is detailed analysis of adherence to the
factual guidelines of Apex Court in D.K. Basu v. State of
W.B.5 and such factual finding also requires endorsement
and petitioner has failed to make out a case for a
divergent view.
(1997) 1 SCC 416
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
[V] DEFAULT BAIL:-
44. The petitioner has filed an application under
Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. [Section 187(3) of BNSS] read
with Section 45 of PMLA. It is the case made out by the
petitioner that the arrest was on 16.09.2025 and the sixty
day period for completion of investigation had expired on
15.11.2025, while the 'ED' though had filed the
Prosecution Complaint on 14.11.2025, the same was
incomplete and defective and accordingly, have sought for
release of the petitioner on statutory/default bail.
45. It is contended that the incomplete chargesheet
is no chargesheet at all and that the investigation as
regards the other accused as on the relevant date was still
to be completed and accordingly, the mere filing of
Prosecution Complaint against the petitioner has been
made only to defeat the indefeasible right of the
petitioner.
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
46. The statement of objections has been filed by
the respondent and it is contended that the Prosecution
Complaint has been filed within the stipulated period of
sixty days.
47. It is further submitted that the observations
made in the office note by the Registry cannot form the
basis to come to a conclusion that incomplete complaint
has been filed. It is submitted that the clarifications and
compliances pointed out by the Pending Section of the
Court relate to minor discrepancies, including pagination of
relied upon documents and description in Index, which
office objections have been duly complied with. It is
submitted that such observations made by the Registry
cannot form the basis for the petitioner to claim default
bail.
48. It is further submitted that the technical defects
do not have the effect of overruling the substantive
contents of the chargesheet.
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
49. The defects that were noticed by the Registry
have been complied and the Court has noticed that the
discrepancies noted as regards the relied upon documents
have been rectified by the Investigating Officer as on
27.11.2025. It is further observed that the learned SPP
had submitted that they had not been intimated regarding
the discrepancies in time.
50. It is to be noticed that the nature of defects
appear to be formal in nature, including as regards the
corrections in the Index Sheet of the Prosecution
Complaint.
51. In the present case, the chargesheet has
always continued to remain as a part of the Court record
and there has been rectification of defects, and in the
absence of any defect which the Court feels is fatal to the
Final Report, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the
benefit of default bail. The Special Court has not found the
defects to be of such nature so as to vitiate the
chargesheet itself. If that were to be so, it cannot be held
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
that the defects such as Index Sheet as noticed in the
present case cannot have the effect of vitiating the
chargesheet.
52. In the case of Sajith v. State of Kerala6 relied
on by the petitioner, the chargesheet was not
re-presented after it was returned as defective.
Accordingly, the said order would not come to the aid of
the petitioner.
53. Insofar as the aspect of incomplete chargesheet
being a ground for default bail, it must be noticed that as
regards the petitioner is concerned, a Final Report was
filed within the period of sixty days. No doubt,
investigation against other accused is still under progress,
however, by virtue of the law laid down by the Apex Court
in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Kapil
Wadhawan and Another7 [Kapil Wadhawan (supra)],
wherein it is clarified that once the chargesheet is filed
against the particular accused, the statutory right of
(2024) 3 SCC 734
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
default bail cannot be claimed on the ground that
investigation qua other accused was pending, the question
of contending that there was incomplete chargesheet
warranting extending of relief of default bail does not
arise.
54. The further contention is that while filing the
Prosecution Complaint, liberty has been sought for
Additional Prosecution Complaint by the prosecution for
further investigation.
55. Once the essential contents of chargesheet are
found, mere liberty reserved for further investigation
would not take away the effect of filing of chargesheet, as
long as the requirements of a Final Report under Section
173(2) of Cr.P.C. are found.
56. Accordingly, in the present case, it is not
demonstrated that the requirements of Section 173(2) of
Cr.P.C. is absent. If that were to be so, the Prosecution
Complaint filed would fulfil the requirement of filing of the
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
Final Report within the time stipulated and liberty sought
for to file Additional Prosecution Complaint after further
investigation would not take away the effect of first
complete Prosecution Complaint that was filed on
14.11.2025. This position would emanate from the
reading of paras-21 to 24 of the decision in Kapil
Wadhawan (supra). The same are extracted
hereinbelow:-
"21. In our opinion, the Constitution Bench in K.
Veeraswami v. Union of India8 has aptly explained the
scope of Section 173(2) : (SCC p. 716, para 76)
"76. The charge-sheet is nothing but a final report
of police officer under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. The
Section 173(2) provides that on completion of the
investigation the police officer investigating into a
cognizable offence shall submit a report. The report
must be in the form prescribed by the State
Government and stating therein (a) the names of the
parties; (b) the nature of the information; (c) the names
of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the
circumstances of the case; (d) whether any offence
appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom
(1991) 3 SCC 655
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
(e) whether the accused has been arrested; (f) whether
he had been released on his bond and, if so, whether
with or without sureties; and (g) whether he has been
forwarded in custody under Section 170. As observed by
this Court in Satya Narain Musadi v. State of Bihar9 that
the statutory requirement of the report under Section
173(2) would be complied with if the various details
prescribed therein are included in the report. This report
is an intimation to the magistrate that upon
investigation into a cognizable offence the Investigating
Officer has been able to procure sufficient evidence for
the court to inquire into the offence and the necessary
information is being sent to the court. In fact, the report
under Section 173(2) purports to be an opinion of the
Investigating Officer that as far as he is concerned he
has been able to procure sufficient material for the trial
of the accused by the court. The report is complete if it
is accompanied with all the documents and statements
of witnesses as required by Section 175(5). Nothing
more need be stated in the report of the Investigating
Officer. It is also not necessary that all the details of the
offence must be stated. The details of the offence are
required to be proved to bring home the guilt to the
accused at a later stage i.e. in the course of the trial of
the case by adducing acceptable evidence."
(emphasis supplied)
(1980) 3 SCC 152
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
22. In view of the above settled legal position,
there remains no shadow of doubt that the
statutory requirement of the report under Section
173(2) would be complied with if the various details
prescribed therein are included in the report. The
report under Section 173 is an intimation to the
court that upon investigation into the cognizable
offence, the investigating officer has been able to
procure sufficient evidence for the court to inquire
into the offence and the necessary information is
being sent to the court. The report is complete if it
is accompanied with all the documents and
statements of witnesses as required by Section
175(5). As settled in the aforestated case, it is not
necessary that all the details of the offence must be
stated.
23. ... It may be noted that the right of the
investigating officer to pray for further investigation
in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not
taken away only because a charge-sheet is filed
under sub-section (2) thereof against the accused.
Though ordinarily all documents relied upon by the
prosecution should accompany the charge-sheet,
nonetheless for some reasons, if all the documents
are not filed along with the charge-sheet, that
reason by itself would not invalidate or vitiate the
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
charge-sheet. It is also well settled that the court
takes cognizance of the offence and not the
offender."
57. The reliance may also be placed upon the Apex
Court decision in Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI10 [also referred
to by the Apex Court in Kapil Wadhawan (supra)]. The
relevant paragraph is extracted hereinbelow:-
"39. ... The statutory scheme does not lead
to a conclusion in regard to an investigation
leading to filing of final form under sub-section
(2) of Section 173 and further investigation
contemplated under sub-section (8) thereof.
Whereas only when a charge-sheet is not filed
and investigation is kept pending, benefit of
proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section
167 of the Code would be available to an
offender; once, however, a charge-sheet is filed,
the said right ceases. Such a right does not
revive only because a further investigation
remains pending within the meaning of sub-
section (8) of Section 173 of the Code."
(emphasis supplied)
(2007) 8 SCC 770
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
58. Further, it must be noticed that, as this Court
finds that the Prosecution Complaint filed in the first
instance cannot be stated to be incomplete merely on the
ground that further Prosecution Complaint would be filed
upon further investigation. Accordingly, the question of
granting default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. does
not arise. The petitioner has not been able to point out
that the essential requirements of a chargesheet are
absent.
59. Though the Apex Court in Ritu Chhabaria v.
Union of India and Others11 [Ritu Chhabaria (supra)]
had observed that without completing investigation of a
case, the Prosecution Complaint cannot be filed by the
Investigating Agency only to deprive the accused of right
of default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. However, in
the case of Director of Enforcement v. Manpreet Singh
Talwar12, the Apex Court by its order of 12.05.2023 has
clarified that the application for grant of default bail could
(2024) 12 SCC 116 - [W.P.(Crl.) No.60/2023]
SPL (Crl.) 5724/2023
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
be proceeded independent of and without relying on the
judgment in W.P.(Crl.) No.60/2023, disposed of on
26.04.2023. In effect, the Apex Court has held as
hereunder:-
"In continuation of the interim order of this Court
dated 1 May 2023, we clarify that the order shall not
preclude any trial court or, as the case may be, High
Court from considering an application for the grant of
default bail under Section 167 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973 independent of and without
relying on the judgment dated 26 April 2023 in Writ
Petition (Criminal) No 60 of 2023."
[VI] MEDICAL BAIL:-
60. The petitioner has also raised the medical
ground and seeks for bail on such ground as well.
Reliance is placed on the First Proviso to Section 45 of
PMLA, while seeking bail. Proviso to Section 45 reads as
follows:-
"Provided that a person who is under the age of
sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm or
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
is accused either on his own or along with other
co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less
than one crore rupees, may be released on bail, if
the Special Court so directs:"
61. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is
suffering from health issues, such as Haemorrhoids,
Asthma, Hamstring injury and also that the Doctor has
advised him to undergo 2D Scan for chest pain. The
medical documents are enclosed at Annexure-'V6' to the
petition.
62. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is required to be operated regarding
Haemorrhoids. It must be noticed that for the purpose of
being enlarged on bail, it is to be established that the
petitioner is to be sick or infirm. However, it is the settled
position of law that sickness or infirmity must be of such
nature that medical assistance cannot be provided in
penitentiary hospitals. The nature of illness pleaded is
such that it could be treated in Government Hospitals and
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
the respondents can be directed to ensure that medical
treatment as may be required for the purpose of present
medical ailment be provided. The material on hand does
not make out a case of any serious life threatening ailment
that cannot be treated in jail/Government Hospital.
Further, it cannot be stated that the medical ailment is
such that his continuance in custody would endanger life
of the accused.
63. Accordingly, the bail sought on medical grounds
is liable to be rejected, while observing that the
respondent Authorities have to take appropriate action to
ensure that the petitioner is given adequate treatment for
his health ailment.
[VII] LONG INCARCERATION AND DELAYED TRIAL AS A
CONSIDERATION FOR GRANT OF BAIL:-
64. While the satisfaction of twin conditions under
Section 45 of PMLA are indeed necessary in order to
consider grant of bail, the question as to whether general
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
principles of bail which may be considered to be the facets
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India could be read into
so as to enlarge the accused on bail in case the
circumstances are made out, is a matter that has been
dealt with by the Apex Court. The observations made by
Apex Court in Manish Sisodia v. Central Bureau of
Investigation13 [Manish Sisodia-1] are extracted
hereinbelow:-
"28. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for the
reasons stated, we are not inclined to accept the
prayer for grant of bail at this stage.
29. However, we are also concerned about the
prolonged period of incarceration suffered by the
appellant Manish Sisodia. In P. Chidambaram
v. Enforcement Directorate14, the appellant therein
was granted bail after being kept in custody for
around 49 days15, relying on the Constitution Bench
in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab16
and Sanjay Chandra v. CBI17, that even if the
(2024) 12 SCC 691
(2020) 13 SCC 791
(2020) 13 SCC 337, the appellant therein was granted bail after being kept in custody for
around 62 days.
(1980) 2 SCC 565
(2012) 1 SCC 40
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
allegation is one of grave economic offence, it is not
a rule that bail should be denied in every case.
Ultimately, the consideration has to be made on a
case-to-case basis, on the facts. The primary object
is to secure the presence of the accused to stand
trial. The argument that the appellant therein was a
flight risk or that there was a possibility of tampering
with the evidence or influencing the witnesses, was
rejected by the Court.
30. Again, in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI18, this
Court referred to Surinder Singh v. State of
Punjab19 and Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab20, to
emphasise that the right to speedy trial is a
fundamental right within the broad scope of Article
21 of the Constitution.
31. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary 21, this Court while
highlighting the evil of economic offences like
money-laundering, and its adverse impact on the
society and citizens, observed that arrest infringes
the fundamental right to life. This Court referred to
Section 19 of the PML Act, for the in-built safeguards
to be adhered to by the authorised officers to ensure
fairness, objectivity and accountability22.
(2022) 10 SCC 51
(2005) 7 SCC 387
(1977) 4 SCC 291
(2023) 12 SCC 1
See also Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India - (2024) 7 SCC 576
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
32.Vijay Madanlal Choudhary23, also held that
Section 436-A of the Code24 can apply to offences
under the PML Act, as it effectuates the right to
speedy trial, a facet of the right to life, except for a
valid ground such as where the trial is delayed at the
instance of the accused himself. In our opinion,
Section 436-A should not be construed as a mandate
that an accused should not be granted bail under the
PML Act till he has suffered incarceration for the
specified period. This Court in Arnab Manoranjan
Goswami v. State of Maharashtra25, held that while
ensuring proper enforcement of criminal law on one
hand, the court must be conscious that liberty across
human eras is as tenacious as tenacious can be.
34. Detention or jail before being pronounced guilty
of an offence should not become punishment without
trial. If the trial gets protracted despite assurances of
(2023) 12 SCC 1
436-A of the Code reads:
"436-A. Maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can be detained.--Where a
person has, during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code of an offence
under any law (not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one
of the punishments under that law) undergone detention for a period extending up to one-half of
the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law, he shall be
released by the Court on his personal bond with or without sureties:
Provided that the Court may, after hearing the Public Prosecutor and for reasons to be
recorded by it in writing, order the continued detention of such person for a period longer than
one-half of the said period or release him on bail instead of the personal bond with or without
sureties:
Provided further that no such person shall in any case be detained during the period of
investigation, inquiry or trial for more than the maximum period of imprisonment provided for
the said offence under that law.
Explanation.--In computing the period of detention under this section for granting bail, the
period of detention passed due to delay in proceeding caused by the accused shall be excluded."
(2021) 2 SCC 427
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
the prosecution, and it is clear that case will not be
decided within a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail
may be meritorious. While the prosecution may
pertain to an economic offence, yet it may not be
proper to equate these cases with those punishable
with death, imprisonment for life, ten years or more
like offences under the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, murder, cases of
rape, dacoity, kidnaping for ransom, mass violence,
etc. Neither is this a case where 100/1000s of
depositors have been defrauded. The allegations
have to be established and proven.
35. The right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with
incarceration for a long period, depending on the
nature of the allegations, should be read into Section
439 of the Code and Section 45 of the PML Act. The
reason is that the constitutional mandate is the
higher law, and it is the basic right of the person
charged of an offence and not convicted, that he be
ensured and given a speedy trial. When the trial is
not proceeding for reasons not attributable to the
accused, the court, unless there are good reasons,
may well be guided to exercise the power to grant
bail. This would be truer where the trial would take
years."
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
65. The observations at para-35 referred to above
would indicate that constitutional protection flowing from a
higher law could be read into the jurisprudence of bail and
into Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and Section 45 of PMLA. The
said principle has been reiterated in Manish Sisodia v.
Directorate of Enforcement26 [Manish Sisodia -3].
The relevant portions of the decision are extracted
hereinbelow:-
"25. Before considering the submissions of the
learned ASG with regard to maintainability of
the present appeals on account of the second
order of this Court, it will be apposite to refer
to certain observations made by this Court in
its first order.
66. The Court had reiterated the observation made
in paras-29 to 35 of Manish Sisodia-1 and has made
certain other relevant observations that are extracted
below:-
(2024) 12 SCC 660
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
36. In view of the assurance given at the Bar
on behalf of the prosecution that they shall
conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps
within next six to eight months, we give liberty
to the appellant Manish Sisodia to move a fresh
application for bail in case of change in
circumstances, or in case the trial is protracted
and proceeds at a snail's pace in next three
months. If any application for bail is filed in the
above circumstances, the same would be
considered by the trial court on merits without
being influenced by the dismissal of the earlier
bail application, including the present
judgment. Observations made above, re.: right
to speedy trial, will, however, be taken into
consideration. The appellant Manish Sisodia
may also file an application for interim bail in
case of ill health and medical emergency due to
illness of his wife. Such application would be
also examined on its own merits."
67. The relevant facts indicating the length of
imprisonment are:-
(a) Date of registration of FIR:- 27.09.2024 - Pursuant to
direction of the Special Court in PCR No.28/2024,
- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
wherein matter was referred for investigation under
Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
(b) Date of arrest:- 16.09.2025
(c) Period of incarceration as on date of pronouncement
of order:- 127 days (from the date of arrest till the
date of pronouncement).
68. It is to be examined as to whether such period
of incarceration would be sufficient to treat it as infringing
upon rights of the petitioner under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and thus entitling the petitioner to be
enlarged on bail.
69. It is to be noticed that the Apex Court in Manish
Sisodia-3 (supra) while dealing with request for being
enlarged on bail in light of the liberty granted under
Manish Sisodia - 1(supra) has granted bail on the sole
ground of long incarceration compounded by prospects of
a delayed trial.
- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
70. The Apex Court, while considering the objection
of learned ASG that provisions of Section 45 of PMLA
would come in the way of consideration of grant of bail to
the accused has observed that the observations made in
Manish Sisodia -1 (supra) at para-34 would be
sufficient to proceed to consider grant of bail despite
restrictions under Section 45 of PMLA. Para-37 of the
decision in Manish Sisodia-3 (supra) is extracted
hereinbelow:-
"37. In the light of the specific observations of
this Court in para 34 of the first order27, we are not
inclined to accept the submission of the learned ASG
that the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA would
come in the way of consideration of the application of
the appellant for grant of bail."
71. A close scrutiny of the context in which bail was
rejected in Manish Sisodia-1 (supra) would reveal that
the application for bail was rejected on its merits after
recording a finding regarding prima facie case made out as
Manish Sisodia v. CBI - (2024) 12 SCC 691
- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
regards the ingredients of the offence of money
laundering. Such rejection is detailed in the discussion at
para-1 to para-25, what would be of substantial
significance is the latter part of the order from para-26
onwards. The Apex Court has consciously adverted to the
effect of long incarceration and the object of bail being to
secure the accused to stand trial. The Apex Court has
referred to the right of speedy trial flowing from Article 21
of the Constitution of India. A specific reference is made
to the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra)
insofar as it refers to Section 436A of the Code as being
applicable to offences under PMLA and observes that
Section 436A effectuates the right to speedy trial being a
facet of right to life, except where such delay is
attributable to the accused himself. It re-emphasizes
that:-
"34. Detention or jail before being pronounced of
guilty of an offence should not become
punishment without crime. If the trial gets
protracted despite assurances of the Prosecution
- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
and it is clear that case will not be decided within
a foreseeable time, the prayer for bail may be
meritorious...."
72. It is relevant to notice that it is in the context of
an order granting bail under PMLA that the Apex Court has
reiterated the principle, 'bail is rule and jail is exception'.
The observations at para-52 of Manish Sisodia-3 reads
as follows:-
"52. The Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh case28
further observed that, over a period of time, the
trial courts and the High courts have forgotten a
very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to
be withheld as a punishment. From our experience,
we can say that it appears that the trial courts and
the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of
grant of bail. The principle that bail is a rule and
refusal is an exception is, at times, followed in
breach. On account of non-grant of bail even in
straightforward open-and-shut cases, this Court is
flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby
adding to the huge pendency. It is high time that
the trial courts and the High Courts should
(2024) 9 SCC 813
- 54 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
recognize the principle that "bail is rule and jail is
exception".
73. It is significant that the decision in Manish
Sisodia - 3(supra) reiterates that Section 45 of PMLA
would not come in the way of considering grant of bail due
to long incarceration and delay in time.
74. That apart, what is noticeable is that the
reiteration of the principle, 'bail is rule and jail is
exception', which observation is made even in the context
of PMLA.
75. The other orders of the Apex Court in the same
line of reasoning would require reference. The Apex Court
in Padamchand Jain v. Enforcement Directorate29 has
specifically clarified that the law laid down in Manish
Sisodia-3 (supra) was not under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India and that the twin conditions under
Section 45 of PMLA cannot override the constitutional
SLP No.(Cri.) 17476/2025
- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
safeguard as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. The observations at paras-6 and 7 of the decision
would read as hereunder:-
"6. Learned Single Judge of the High Court, while
considering the law laid down by this Court in Manish
Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 SCC
OnLine 1920, has observed that this Court has granted
bail in the said matter in exercise of powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
7. We may clarify that in the case of Manish Sisodia
(supra) the Court has not exercised the powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Court has
held that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the
PMLA cannot override the constitutional safeguards, as
provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
This Court has held that a prolonged incarceration
cannot be permitted to be converted pre-trial
detention into a sentence without trial. Like in the case
of Manish Sisodia (supra) in the present case also
thousands of documents are required to be considered
at the stage of trial, so also around 50 witnesses are
required to be examined. The main evidence in the
present case is documentary in nature, which is
already seized by the prosecution agency. As such,
- 56 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
there is no possibility of the same being tampered
with."
76. What would be of significance is that the
observations were made by the Apex Court as extracted
hereinabove, while specifically dealing with the contention
of the learned Additional Solicitor General that, no bail
could be granted unless twin conditions of Section 45 of
PMLA are complied with (see para-4).
77. Accordingly, the Three Judge Bench of Apex
Court while reiterating the order in Manish Sisodia-3
(supra) has set at rest the primacy of constitutional rights
flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India vis-à-
vis the statutory provisions of Section 45 of PMLA.
78. It is also an independent principle of bail
jurisprudence that the object of pre-trial detention cannot
be punitive nor could it be construed to constitute moral
conviction.
- 57 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
79. The Apex Court has reiterated that the right to
personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India that is to be safeguarded where there is indefinite
detention in cases involving voluminous documents and
heavy material where trial is unlikely to begin promptly.
The observations of Apex Court at para-27 in V. Senthil
Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of
Enforcement30 [Senthil Balaji (supra)] is extracted
hereinbelow:-
"27. Under the Statutes like PMLA, the minimum
sentence is three years, and the maximum is seven
years. The minimum sentence is higher when the
scheduled offence is under the NDPS Act. When the
trial of the complaint under PMLA is likely to prolong
beyond reasonable limits, the Constitutional Courts
will have to consider exercising their powers to grant
bail. The reason is that Section 45(1)(ii) does not
confer power on the State to detain an accused for
an unreasonably long time, especially when there is
no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable
time. What a reasonable time is will depend on the
provisions under which the accused is being tried and
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626
- 58 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
other factors. One of the most relevant factor is the
duration of the minimum and maximum sentence for
the offence. Another important consideration is the
higher threshold or stringent conditions which a
statute provides for the grant of bail. Even an outer
limit provided by the relevant law for the completion
of the trial, if any, is also a factor to be considered.
The extraordinary powers, as held in the case of K.A.
Najeeb31, can only be exercised by the Constitutional
Courts. The Judges of the Constitutional Courts have
vast experience. Based on the facts on record, if the
Judges conclude that there is no possibility of a trial
concluding in a reasonable time, the power of
granting bail can always be exercised by the
Constitutional Courts on the grounds of violation of
Part III of the Constitution of India notwithstanding
the statutory provisions. The Constitutional Courts
can always exercise its jurisdiction under Article 32
or Article 226, as the case may be. The
Constitutional Courts have to bear in mind while
dealing with the cases under the PMLA that, except
in a few exceptional cases, the maximum sentence
can be of seven years. The Constitutional Courts
cannot allow provisions like Section 45(1)(ii) to
become instruments in the hands of the ED to
continue incarceration for a long time when there is
no possibility of a trial of the scheduled offence and
(2021) 3 SCC 713
- 59 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
the PMLA offence concluding within a reasonable
time. If the Constitutional Courts do not exercise
their jurisdiction in such cases, the rights of the
undertrials under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India will be defeated. In a given case, if an undue
delay in the disposal of the trial of scheduled
offences or disposal of trial under the PMLA can be
substantially attributed to the accused, the
Constitutional Courts can always decline to exercise
jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs. An exception
will also be in a case where, considering the
antecedents of the accused, there is every possibility
of the accused becoming a real threat to society if
enlarged on bail. The jurisdiction to issue prerogative
writs is always discretionary."
80. It thus becomes clear that the Apex Court has
reiterated the supremacy of rights flowing from Part-III of
the Constitution of India which stand abridged where there
is no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time
and the constitutional courts on such principle enlarge the
accused on bail "notwithstanding the statutory provisions".
- 60 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
81. The observations in Senthil Balaji (supra) has
been reiterated by the latest judgment of the Apex Court
in Mahesh Joshi v. Directorate of Enforcement32 at
paras-13 and 14.
"13. In V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy
Director, Directorate of Enforcement, of
which, one of us was a member (Augustine
George Masih, J.,), this Court, particularly in
para 27, held that where a trial cannot be
reasonably concluded and incarceration
becomes prolonged, constitutional courts
must intervene to safeguard the right to
personal liberty under Article 21. The Court
further emphasised that Section 45(1)(ii) of
the PMLA cannot be interpreted to justify
indefinite detention in cases involving
voluminous, document-heavy material
where trial is unlikely to begin promptly.
14. Upon considering the material placed
before us, we find that several co-accused,
whose alleged roles will ultimately be
evaluated at trial, have already been
granted bail. The Appellant has remained in
custody for over seven months. The record
SLP (Crl.) No.13737/2025 vide order dated 03.12.2025.
- 61 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
is entirely documentary, as of now there are
66 witnesses, 184 documents, and more
than 14,600 pages are involved, and the
proceedings are still at the stage of supply
of copy of the police report and other
documents under Section 207, CrPC. In our
view, these circumstances indicate that the
commencement of trial is not imminent and
that the trial itself is not likely to conclude
once started in the near future. The
continued detention of the Appellant
requires closer scrutiny in light of
constitutional considerations.
82. The Apex Court in Udhaw Singh v.
Enforcement Directorate33 has noticed the judgment in
Union of India Through Assistant Director v.
Kanhaiya Prasad34 [Kanhaiya Prasad (supra)]which
appeared to strike a discordant note has specifically
observed at para-5 that the observations made in the said
judgment was in the context of a particular factual matrix
where the orders in Senthil Balaji (supra) were not
Crl.A No.799/2025 vide order dated 17.02.2025
(2025) SCC OnLine SC 306
- 62 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
applicable and accordingly, the order in Kanhaiya Prasad
(supra) does not refer to the judgment in Senthil Balaji
(supra).
83. The latest judgment of the Apex Court in the
context of long detention being a ground to seek release
on bail is that of the Apex Court in Arvind Dham v.
Directorate of Enforcement35. The observations at
para-15 to para-18 reiterate and sum up the legal
position, which is 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 committed36.
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
2026 SCC OnLine SC 30
P.Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791
- 63 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
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 basis37. 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 crime38. 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 trial39.
16. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in V. Senthil
Balaji's case40 has held that under the statutes such
as PMLA, where maximum sentence is seven years,
prolonged incarceration pending trial may warrant
grant of bail by Constitutional Courts, if there is no
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51
Javed Gulam NAbi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813
Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 660
V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626
- 64 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
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."
84. The Apex Court took note of the arrest of only
the petitioner therein who was one of the 28 individuals,
that the maximum sentence was seven years, that there
- 65 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
was no likelihood in the commencement of trial in the near
future. It is observed at para-19 as follows:-
"19. ..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 the right of
the appellant to speedy trial under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. "
Accordingly, taking note of all the above factors, the
Court in the above factual matrix enlarged the accused on
bail.
85. The consistent legal reasoning adopted while
enlarging the accused on bail is in the context of long
detention, factually dense material relied upon and
absence of any possibility of trial being concluded early.
Further, the Apex Court in Senthil Balaji (supra) has
emphasized that judicial discretion is vested in the
constitutional courts which is to be exercised in light of the
particular factual matrix.
- 66 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
86. Accordingly, it is clear that the ground of
speedy trial, context of delay in trial and long incarceration
are by itself independent grounds to seek for being
enlarged on bail on the premise of rights flowing from
Article 21 of the Constitution of India which could be
pressed into service de hors merits of the application in
terms of Section 45 of PMLA. The Apex Court has
referred to constitutional mandate being higher law must
be read into Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
87. In light of the above legal framework, the
request of the petitioner for being enlarged on bail in the
present case is to be considered.
88. However, taking note that the length of
incarceration is 127 days as of now, it can be stated that it
would not qualify to be long incarceration entitling the
petitioner to be released on bail for the present.
- 67 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
[VIII] CONCLUSION:-
89. The approach of Apex Court in Manish Sisodia
- 1 (supra) could be adopted in the present case as well.
The Apex Court while recording a positive finding though
for the purposes of Section 45 of PMLA that the prayer for
grant of bail could not be considered, as a prima facie case
of involvement of the petitioner was made out, however,
reserved liberty to approach, if there was delay in the trial
while discussing the effect of prolonged incarceration.
90. The observations made at paras-29 to 32
extracted supra in Manish Sisodia-1 (supra) as well as
the observation at para-36 which is extracted as
hereunder:-
"36. In view of the assurance given at the Bar on
behalf of the prosecution that they shall conclude
the trial by taking appropriate steps within next six
to eight months, we give liberty to the appellant
Manish Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail
- 68 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
in case of change in circumstances, or in case the
trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail's pace in
next three months. If any application for bail is filed
in the above circumstances, the same would be
considered by the trial court on merits without
being influenced by the dismissal of the earlier bail
application, including the present judgment.
Observations made above, re.: right to speedy
trial, will, however, be taken into consideration.
The appellant Manish Sisodia may also file an
application for interim bail in case of ill health and
medical emergency due to illness of his wife. Such
application would be also examined on its own
merits."
would indicate that the Apex Court taking note of the
stand of the Prosecution regarding trial, reserved liberty to
the appellant therein to move a fresh application for bail in
case of change in circumstances or if trial is protracted and
proceeds at a snail's pace in the next three months or if
the trial is not concluded within six to eight months.
91. Subsequently, in Manish Sisodia v.
Directorate of Enforcement41 [Manish Sisodia-2]
(2024) SCC OnLine SC 1498
- 69 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
when the accused had approached the Apex Court once
again, the Apex Court noticing that the period of six to
eight months fixed by the previous order
[Manish Sisodia-1 (supra)] not having expired,
reserved liberty to revive his prayer to move afresh after
filing of complaint/chargesheet.
92. Finally, the Apex Court in the third round of
approach whereby a challenge was made to the rejection
of application by the High Court in Manish Sisodia-3
(supra) enlarged the petitioner on bail recording that
there was remote possibility of trial being concluded in the
near future, that keeping the appellant behind the bars for
an unlimited period of time would deprive his fundamental
right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, that prolonged incarceration before being
pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to
become punishment without trial.
93. Finally, the Apex Court proceeded to grant bail
after taking note of the aspect of long incarceration. In
- 70 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
the present case as well having held that the length of
incarceration cannot qualify to be long incarceration, as
the petitioner has been in custody for 127 days as of now,
it would be appropriate to reserve liberty to the petitioner
to approach this Court after a lapse of three months.
94. The petitioner then would have to point out as
regards Prosecution having taken steps for
commencement of trial and that there may be the
possibility of joint trial contributing to further delay and
that there was no possibility of trial concluding within a
reasonable time.
95. The Prosecution also would have to keep such
aspects in mind so as to demonstrate that trial would be
concluded within a reasonable time. Upon consideration of
such aspects, the Court may take an appropriate decision.
96. Reserving liberty would be justified while
noticing that, as on date, it is the petitioner alone who has
been arrested amongst the several accused, that prior to
- 71 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3030
HC-KAR
his arrest, he had subjected himself to interrogation and
that the investigation of the predicate offence is not yet
concluded.
97. Accordingly, in light of the observations made
above, the grant of bail for the present is rejected.
However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to
re-approach after a period of three months directly before
this Court and to make a renewed plea for bail.
98. Accordingly, the petition is rejected, while
reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach afresh in
terms of the relevant observations supra.
Sd/-
(S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
VGR
