Antony Sunny vs Enforcement Directorate
2025 Latest Caselaw 11891 Ker

Kerala High Court

Antony Sunny vs Enforcement Directorate on 4 December, 2025

Author: Kauser Edappagath

Bench: Kauser Edappagath

B.A.Nos.10693 and 11739 of 2025

                                  ..1..

                                                2025:KER:94056


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

  THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA,

                              1947

                 BAIL APPL. NO. 10693 OF 2025

   CRIME NO.ECIR/KZSZO/01/2023 OF ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE,

                      KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

      AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.08.2025 IN BAIL APPL.

NO.9293 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

          ANTONY SUNNY
          AGED 40 YEARS
          S/O SUNNY V.A, VELLARA HOUSE, NAYARANGADI,
          JAMANANGAD, VADAKKEKAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 679562


          BY ADVS.
          SRI.P.SANJAY
          SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON
          SRI.BIJU MEENATTOOR
          SRI.KIRAN NARAYANAN
          SRI.PAUL VARGHESE (PALLATH)
          SHRI.RAHUL RAJ P.
          SHRI.MUHAMMED BILAL.V.A
          SMT.MEERA R. MENON
 B.A.Nos.10693 and 11739 of 2025

                                  ..2..

                                                2025:KER:94056


RESPONDENT:

          ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
          REP. BY THE ASST. DIRECTOR,
          DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,
          KOZHIKODE SUB ZONAL OFFICE,
          KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673002


          BY ADV SHRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, SC, ENFORCEMENT
          DIRECTORATE


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.12.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL.11739/2025, THE COURT ON THE
SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.Nos.10693 and 11739 of 2025

                                  ..3..

                                                   2025:KER:94056




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

  THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA,

                               1947

                 BAIL APPL. NO. 11739 OF 2025

   CRIME NO.ECIR/KZSZO/01/2023 OF ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE,

                      KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE

        AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.04.2025 IN BAIL APPL.

           NO.4681 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

PETITIONER/SECOND ACCUSED:

          SHOUKATHALI M.M
          AGED 46 YEARS
          SON OF MOIDU,
          RESIDING AT MELEPPATTU VALAPPIL HOUSE,
          THRITHALLOOR, VADANAPPALLY,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680619


          BY ADVS.
          SRI.T.MADHU
          SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI
          SMT.AVANTHIKA R.
 B.A.Nos.10693 and 11739 of 2025

                                  ..4..

                                                2025:KER:94056


RESPONDENT/STATE:

          THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
          DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT,
          GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,
          DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
          SUB ZONAL OFFICE KOZHIKKODE,
          KOZHIKKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673001


          BY ADV SHRI.JAISHANKAR V.NAIR, SC, ENFORCEMENT
          DIRECTORATE


     THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.12.2025, ALONG WITH BAIL APPL.NO.10693/2025, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 B.A.Nos.10693 and 11739 of 2025

                                  ..5..

                                                     2025:KER:94056




                           ORDER

The applicants are accused Nos. 3 and 4 in S.C.No.141 of

2025 pending on the files of the Additional District Court (Special

Court for trial of Marad Cases), Kozhikode (for short, 'the trial

court'). They have filed the above bail applications under Section

483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

2. The offences alleged against the applicants are

punishable under Section 3 r/w 4 of the Prevention of Money

Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, 'the PMLA').

3. The prosecution case, in short, is as follows: - The

accused were the promoters of a company by name, 'Kannur

Urban Nidhi Limited' (KUNL), which is offering 12 to 12.5%

interest on fixed deposits. The company had accepted fixed

deposits from several investors. According to the prosecution, the

accused diverted those funds for the establishment and running of

another company by name, 'Anytime Money Pvt. Ltd.' (ATM) and B.A.Nos.10693 and 11739 of 2025

..6..

2025:KER:94056

to the personal accounts of the petitioners and other accused.

According to the prosecution, the accused embezzled around

Rs.40 Crores by cheating the investors. So many cases are

registered against the accused by the Crime Branch of Kannur and

Kasaragod units. Hence, it is alleged that the accused also

committed the offence under Section 3 r/w 4 of the PMLA.

4. The applicant in B.A.No. 10693 of 2025 had filed

B.A.No.741 of 2025 before this Court seeking regular bail. It was

dismissed on merits as per the order of this Court dated

13.03.2025. The applicant in B.A.No.11739 of 2025 filed

B.A.No.4681 of 2025 before this Court. It was dismissed as

withdrawn as per the order of this Court dated 08.04.2025. Now,

both the above bail applications have been filed primarily on the

grounds of prolonged incarceration, placing reliance on the

decision of the Supreme Court in Senthil Balaji V v. Deputy

Director, Directorate of Enforcement [2024 KHC 6530].

5. I have heard Sri.P.Sanjay, the learned counsel for the B.A.Nos.10693 and 11739 of 2025

..7..

2025:KER:94056

applicant in B.A.No.10693 of 2025, Sri.T.Madhu, the learned

counsel for the applicant in B.A.No. 11739 of 2025 and

Sri.Jaishankar V. Nair, the learned Standing Counsel for the

Enforcement Directorate.

6. Both the applicants were arrested on 27.11.2024 during

the crime stage. Thereafter, the final report was filed in the month

of January 2025. Both have been in custody since 27.11.2024. The

learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants

are entitled to be released on bail since they have been in custody

for the last more than one year and there is no possibility of

concluding the trial within a reasonable time. On the other hand,

the learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate

submitted that the economic offence would fall under the category

of 'grave offence' and the long incarceration alone should not be

the criterion while considering the bail application. The learned

Standing Counsel further submitted that the bail application filed

by the applicant in B.A.No.10693 of 2025 was already dismissed B.A.Nos.10693 and 11739 of 2025

..8..

2025:KER:94056

by this Court on merits, considering the seriousness of the case

and also holding that the applicant therein failed to satisfy the

twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA. In these

circumstances, the present bail application is not sustainable,

submitted the learned standing counsel. The learned standing

counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of

Karnataka v. Sri Darshan [2025 KHC OnLine 6693] and that

of the High Court of Patna in Anwar Rashid v. Union Bank

of India, through National Investigation Agency, Bihar

[2025 SCC OnLine Pat 3156] in support of his submission.

7. There are series of decisions of the Supreme Court

starting from Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC

713], which hold that stringent provisions in the special statutes

for the grant of bail do not take away the power of the

Constitutional Courts to grant bail on the grounds of violation of

Part III of the Constitution. In Senthil Balaji (supra), it was

held that when a trial of a complaint under PMLA is prolonged B.A.Nos.10693 and 11739 of 2025

..9..

2025:KER:94056

beyond reasonable limits, the Constitutional Courts can always

exercise its jurisdiction to grant bail. It was further held that the

constitutional courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45(1)(ii)

of PMLA to become instruments in the hands of the Enforcement

Directorate to continue incarceration for a long time when there is

no possibility of a trial of a scheduled offence and the PMLA

offence concluding within a reasonable time. It was concluded

that if the court is of the view that, in the facts and circumstances

of the particular case, there is no possibility of the trial concluding

within a reasonable time, bail can be granted for the offence under

PMLA on the ground of long incarceration. The said decision was

followed by the Supreme Court again in Udhaw Singh v.

Enforcement Directorate [2025 SCC Online SC 357]. In

Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement [2024 SCC

Online SC 1920], the Supreme Court had observed that while

considering the question of bail in PMLA proceedings, the Court

has to take note of the dimension regarding the long period of B.A.Nos.10693 and 11739 of 2025

..10..

2025:KER:94056

incarceration and delay in trial since the constitutional mandate is

the higher law. In the decision in Prem Prakash v. Union of

India Through the Directorate of Enforcement [(2024) 9

SCC 787] also, the principle mentioned above has been laid down.

8. I have called for a report from the trial court as to the

present stage of the case and directed the trial court to report

when the case could be scheduled for trial and the period within

which the case could be disposed of. The learned trial court Judge

submitted a report. In the report, it is stated that as per Section

44(1)(a) of the PMLA, an offence punishable u/s 4 and any

scheduled offence connected to the offence under that section

shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in

which the offence has been committed and Sec. 44(1)(c) of PMLA

directs the other court which has taken cognizance of the

scheduled offence to commit the case relating to the scheduled

offence to the Special Court on an application by the authority

authorized to file complaint under the Act. It is further stated in B.A.Nos.10693 and 11739 of 2025

..11..

2025:KER:94056

the report that no such scheduled cases have been committed to

the trial court to enable it to try this case along with such

scheduled cases. Considering the pendency before the trial court,

the learned trial court Judge reported that the case could be

scheduled for trial within a period of ten months, after the

predicate cases are committed to it. Thus, the report indicates that

there is no possibility of concluding the trial in the near future. As

stated already, the applicants have been in custody for the last

twelve months.

9. In Senthil Balaji (supra), the Supreme Court

observed that what would be a reasonable time to conclude the

trial would depend upon the provisions under which the accused

is being tried and other factors. It is further observed that one of

the most relevant factors is the duration of the minimum and

maximum sentence for the offence and another important

consideration is the higher threshold or stringent conditions

which a statute provides for the grant of bail. No doubt, PMLA B.A.Nos.10693 and 11739 of 2025

..12..

2025:KER:94056

provides stringent conditions for the grant of bail under Section

45(1). The maximum sentence provided for the offences under

Sections 3 r/w 4 is seven years. The applicants have been in

custody for more than twelve months. It is reported by the trial

court that there is no likelihood of the trial commencing within a

period of ten months. In Senthil Balaji (supra), it was further

held that in a given case, if an undue delay in the disposal of the

trial of scheduled offences or disposal of trial under the PMLA

could be substantially attributed to the accused, the Constitutional

Courts can always decline to exercise jurisdiction to issue

prerogative writs. It was also held that in a case where the accused

has criminal antecedents, the Constitutional Courts can refuse to

exercise such jurisdiction. Certainly, in this case, the delay in the

disposal of the trial can never be attributed to the accused. The

respondent has no case that the applicants have any other

criminal antecedents other than the scheduled cases.

10. The learned Standing Counsel for ED, relying on the B.A.Nos.10693 and 11739 of 2025

..13..

2025:KER:94056

decision in Sri Darshan (supra) and Anwar Rashid (supra),

submitted that long incarceration alone shall not be the criterion

for granting bail. In paragraph 20.4.1 of Sri Darshan (supra),

the Supreme Court has observed that it is well settled that the

mere prospect of a prolonged trial cannot, by itself, outweigh the

gravity of the offence, the incriminating material gathered during

investigation, or the likelihood of tampering with witnesses. The

question whether, on the ground of long incarceration, the

accused is entitled to bail in a crime involving the offences under

PMLA did not arise for consideration in Sri Darshan (supra).

The Patna High Court in Anwar Rashid (supra) did not

consider Senthil Balaji (supra) at all. That was a case involving

the offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

It was observed therein that mere incarceration of 2½ years in a

case of that nature, which involves a threat to the security of the

nation and its citizens, cannot be kept on equal footing with the

other cases and thus mere incarceration of 2½ years cannot be a B.A.Nos.10693 and 11739 of 2025

..14..

2025:KER:94056

good ground to grant bail. Hence, those two decisions do not

apply to the facts of the present cases.

11. It is true that the bail application filed by the applicant

in B.A.No.10693 of 2025 was dismissed on merits. However, the

main ground now taken in the present bail applications that the

applicants are entitled to bail on the ground of long incarceration

based on the dictum laid down in Senthil Balaji (supra) was not

taken in the earlier bail application.

12. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the

applicants are entitled to bail. In the result, the applications are

allowed on the following conditions: -

(i) The applicants shall be released on bail on executing a

bond for Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only) with two solvent

sureties for the like sum each to the satisfaction of the

jurisdictional trial Court.

(ii) The applicants shall not commit any offence of a like

nature while on bail.

B.A.Nos.10693 and 11739 of 2025

..15..

2025:KER:94056

(iii) The applicants shall not attempt to contact any of the

prosecution witnesses, directly or through any other person, or in

any other way try to tamper with the evidence or influence any

witnesses or other persons related to the crime.

(iv) The applicants shall not leave the State of Kerala

without the permission of the trial Court.

(v) The applicants shall surrender their passports, if any,

before the trial court.

(vi) The application, if any, for deletion/modification of the

bail conditions or cancellation of bail on the grounds of violating

the bail conditions shall be filed at the trial court.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE APA/AS B.A.Nos.10693 and 11739 of 2025

..16..

2025:KER:94056

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 10693 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ECIR BEARING NO.

ECIR/KZSZO/01/2023 ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.01.2023 ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P CRL.NO.818/2023 DATED 19.09.2023 ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER UNDER SECTION 17(1-A) OF PMLA, 2002 ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN B.A. NO.

ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES (ROC) ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM NO. DIR-12 ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS OF PAYMENTS ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. M.C NO.

1/24 FOR REGULAR BAIL BEFORE THE HON'BLE SESSION COURT, KOZHIKODE (MARAD) ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. M.C NO.

1/25 FOR REGULAR BAIL BEFORE THE HON'BLE SESSION COURT, KOZHIKODE (MARAD) ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL SCAN REPORT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KANNUR DATED 26.04.2025 ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE/REPORT ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL COLLEGE, KANNUR ALONG WITH OTHER RECORDS CLEARLY RECOMMENDING URGENT SURGERY ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN BAIL APPLICATION NO. 9293/2025 DATED 13.08.2025 ANNEXURE A14 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.12.2022 ALONG WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND RECEIPT B.A.Nos.10693 and 11739 of 2025

..17..

2025:KER:94056

APPENDIX OF BAIL APPL. NO. 11739 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENFORCEMENT CASE INFORMATION REPORT DATED 31/3/2023 IN CRIME NO. ECIR/KZSZO/01/2023 OF THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, KOZHIKODE ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRODUCTION MEMO IN CRIME NO. ECIR/KZSZO/01/2023 OF THE ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, KOZHIKODE ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4/12/2024 IN CRL.M. C. NO. 2/2024 ON THE FILES OF THE SPECIAL COURT CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT 2002, KOZHIKKODE/SPECIAL ADDITIONAL SESSION'S COURT (MARAD CASES), KOZHIKKODE ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/1/2025 IN B. A. NO. 10165/2024 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/1/2025 IN CRL. M. C. NO.4/2025 ON THE FILES OF THE SPECIAL COURT CONSTITUTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT 2002, KOZHIKKODE/SPECIAL ADDITIONAL SESSION'S COURT (MARAD CASES), KOZHIKKODE ANNEXURE A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/11/2023 IN B. A. NO. 9091/2023 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT ANNEXURE A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8/4/2025 IN B A. NO. 4681/2025 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT