Nitesh Kumar vs The Union Of India Through Assistant ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 63 Patna

Patna High Court

Nitesh Kumar vs The Union Of India Through Assistant ... on 16 January, 2026

Author: Sandeep Kumar

Bench: Sandeep Kumar

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
            CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58371 of 2025
 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2023 Thana- E.C.I.R (GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL)
                                     District- Patna
======================================================

Nitesh Kumar S/o Arvind Kumar Resident of Raj Bhawan, Salimpur Ahara, Gali No. 03, Hajam Toli, Phulwari Sharif, P.S.- Phulwari Sharif, Distt.- Patna, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner Versus The Union of India through Assistant Director, Patna Zonal Office, Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) Govt. of Inida, New Delhi ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prashant Kashyap, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. K.N.Singh, Addl. S.G. For the E.D. : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR C.A.V. JUDGMENT Date : 16-01-2026

Heard Mr. Prashant Kashyap, learned counsel for

the petitioner, Dr. K.N. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor

General of India and Mr. Prabhat Kumar Singh, learned retained

counsel for the Enforcement Directorate.

2. The present application has been moved on

behalf of the petitioner seeking regular bail in connection with

Special Trial (P.M.L.A.) Case No.12 of 2023, arising out of

E.C.I.R. No. PTZO/27/2023 dated 17.10.2023 registered for the

offence under section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering

Act, 2002, pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge-

cum- Special Judge (PMLA), Patna.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that an

information was received from NCB-Ireland alleging therein Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

that cyber fraud was committed on 07.12.2021 with one Ms.

Carmel Fox, an Irish National, to the tune of 950 Euros

(Rs.84,941.40) received by the A.D., NCB, India (C.B.I.). It is

alleged that Ms. Carmel Fox received a call from a Mobile No.

08339852316 identifying herself as Stephanie from Eircom

Technological Service and asked her about her broadband

connection and said that a refund of 250 Euros is due and asked

her bank account details, to which Ms. Carmel Fox provided the

information. It is further alleged that as per information

provided by the NCB Ireland that Nitesh Kumar (petitioner)

allegedly transferred an amount of 950 Euros from the credit

card of Ms. Carmel Fox to a rewire bank account which was

further transferred to M/s. Leconix Business Centre Pvt. Ltd.

having its registered office at Kolkata. It is further alleged that

during investigation, it was found that the petitioner and Sk.

Lutfur Rehman are the Directors of the Company which was

incorporated on 26.11.2020. It was revealed that M/s Leconix

Business Centre Pvt. Ltd has financial transactions with M/s

Scrapix Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd., of which Sagar Yadav

and Prativa Yadav are the directors. It is stated that co-accused

Sagar Yadav was the beneficial owner of M/s Leconix Business

Centre and Nitesh Kumar (petitioner) was his associate and was Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

working with them.

3.1. It is also the case of the prosecution that a

search operation was carried out in the premises of co-accused

Sagar Yadav situated at Kolkata and Kharagpur. Later on, Sagar

Yadav, his associate Santosh Kumar and Robin Kumar Yadav

were arrested.

3.2. It is alleged that during investigation, it was

found that the petitioner was an associate of the co-accused

Robin Yadav and was involved in running fake call centres for

committing cyber fraud with foreign nationals.

3.3. It is further the case of the prosecution that

the petitioner had arranged several bank accounts for receiving,

layering and laundering the Proceeds of Crime in lieu of

commission received from the co-accused Robin Kumar. It is

also alleged that the petitioner had provided the signed copies of

Aadhar Card, PAN card and photographs to accused Sagar

Yadav for incorporating a shell company used for receiving

Proceeds of Crime and further layering and laundering.

Investigation has further revealed that out of the several bank

accounts arranged by the petitioner, two of such bank accounts

have received the proceeds of crime to the tune of Rs.19.31

Lakhs and Rs.19.53 Lakhs as foreign remittance. Further, it is Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had been operating

his bank accounts in consultation with other co-accused persons

and the petitioner used to withdraw Proceeds of Crime in cash

and was in regular touch with Robin Kumar Yadav and Santosh

Kumar. Apart from his own accounts, the petitioner has also

arranged 7 to 8 bank accounts and provided the same to co-

accused Robin Kumar Yadav for payment in lieu of some

commission.

3.4. It is, therefore, the case of the prosecution

that the petitioner has been directly and knowingly involved in

the process or activity connected with commission of scheduled

offence and criminal activities relating thereto and thus, he has

committed the offence of money laundering as defined under

section 3 of PMLA, 2002 punishable under section 4 read with

Section 71 of PMLA, 2002, which, according to the

prosecution, is evident from the fact that the petitioner in his

statement recorded under section 50 of the P.M.L.A., has

admitted of being involved in the commission of offence of

cyber fraud committed with foreign nationals and has also

accepted to have provided nearly 15-16 bank accounts to co-

accused Robin Kumar Yadav in lieu of commission. Further, co-

accused Santosh Kumar in his statement under Section 50 of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

PMLA, 2002 has stated that the petitioner has provided bank

account details to co-accused Robin Yadav. Relying on bank

account transactions, extraction of mobile data and other

materials, the prosecution has contended that the Proceeds of

Crime is in the form of foreign remittance received in the

accounts of the accused persons.

3.5. Based on the basis of aforesaid, Special Trial

(P.M.L.A.) Case No.12 of 2023, arising out of E.C.I.R. No.

PTZO/27/2023 has been instituted.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at the

outset, submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been

falsely implicated for oblique reasons in the present criminal

case. He further submits that according to the prosecution the

petitioner is alleged to have withdrawn cash, however, no cash

amount has ever been recovered from the conscious possession

of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner is totally unaware of any

cash transaction occurring in his HDFC bank account.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for

the petitioner that the petitioner is an unemployed youth, who

came in contact with the co-accused Robin Yadav in the hope of

getting employment, but the said co-accused Robin Yadav in the

name of giving employment took the Aadhar Card and other Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

relevant documents of the petitioner and subsequently, opened a

shell company namely, M/s. Leconix Business Centre Private

Limited and made the petitioner as Director of the said

Company. It has further been submitted that the aforesaid bank

account was operated wholly and completely by co-accused

Robin Yadav and Sagar Yadav.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has

emphasized that the other co-accused persons, particularly,

Robin Yadav and Sagar Yadav have misused the personal

documents of the petitioner to open bank accounts and shell

companies in the name of the petitioner, for which, the

petitioner cannot be held liable.

7. Adverting to the statements of the witnesses

namely, Tuhin Mukhopadhyay and Aniket Gupta, recorded

under section 50 of the P.M.L.A., learned counsel for the

petitioner has submitted that the co-accused Sagar Yadav has

introduced himself to the aforesaid witnesses as Nitesh Kumar

(petitioner), purportedly acting as the Director of M/s. Leconix

Centre Business Private Limited and further upon such

impersonation, the co-accused Sagar Yadav had also applied for

hiring commercial spaces on rent in the name of the aforesaid

shell company. Therefore, it is the categorical submission of Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

leanned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner himself is a

victim, whose identity and documents have been misused for

the wrongful gain of the other accused persons.

8. Adverting to the proviso of Section 45 of the

P.M.L.A., it has been submitted that in the present case, the

allegation against the petitioner is that he had received a sum of

Rs.83,941.40/- which is far less than Rs. 1 crore and therefore,

no case under section 4 of the P.M.L.A. is made out.

9. It has been emphatically submitted by

learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody

since 20.12.2023 having clean antecedent and there is no

likelihood of conclusion of trial in near future. The petitioner

has already suffered a long period of incarceration while still

being an under-trail and the trial itself is moving at a snail's

pace and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on

bail in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of V. Senthil Balaji vs. The Deputy Director, Directorate

of Enforcement reported as 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the

Constitutional Courts can enlarge the accused on bail in cases of

continued and prolonged incarceration and where there is no

possibility of conclusion of trial in near future. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

10. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons namely,

Md. Hussain, Ravindran Prasad Verma and Ramesh Prasad

Barnawal have been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this

Court vide orders dated 07.10.2025 passed in Criminal

Miscellaneous Nos. 14280 of 2025, 8957 of 2025 and 11780 of

2025 respectively. Therefore, it is the contention of the

petitioner that the petitioner also deserves bail on the ground of

parity in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Sagar vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported as 2025 SCC

OnLine SC 2584.

11. In this case, the Enforcement Directorate has

filed a counter affidavit wherein the facts of the present case

leading to the recording of the subject ECIR dated 17.10.2023

have been elaborated. It has been submitted by learned counsel

for the Enforcement Directorate that the petitioner has been

directly and knowingly involved in the process of laundering the

Proceeds of Crime and has assisted co-accused Sagar Yadav and

his associates in the crime.

12. Refuting the submission advanced on behalf

of the petitioner, learned counsel for the Enforcement

Directorate has submitted that Section 45 of the P.M.L.A. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

imposes two conditions for grant of bail specified under the Act

and the same would have overriding effect on the general

provisions of the Cr.P.C. In support of this submission, he has

placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of Gautam Kundu vs. Directorate of Enforcement

reported as (2015) 16 SCC 1.

13. The learned counsel for the Enforcement

Directorate has relied upon the following decisions in order to

contend that in the facts of the present case the threshold of

section 45 of the P.M.L.A. is not met and therefore, the

petitioner may not be enlarged on bail:-

i. Tarun Kumar vs. Assistant Director,

Directorate of Enforcement reported as

2023 SCC OnLine SC 1486;

ii. Enforcement Directorate vs. Aditya

Tripathi reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC

619;

iii. State of Bihar & Anr. vs. Amit Kumar @

Bachcha Rai reported as (2017) 4 SCR 503

iv. Nitesh Purohit vs. Enforcement Directorate

reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Chh 3828.

v. Union of India vs. Kanhaiya Prasad Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 306;

vi. Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma vs. Union

of India reported as 2025 INSC 349.

14. Lastly, it has been submitted that during the

course of search at the premises of the petitioner, he tried to flee

away and tried to frustrate the proceeding under the P.M.L.A.

and therefore, the petitioner may not be granted bail.

15. I have considered the submissions of the

parties and perused the material on record.

16. From perusal of the records, it appears that

the thrust of allegation against the petitioner is that he had

arranged several bank accounts in order to commit financial

fraud on foreign nationals in lieu of commission from other co-

accused persons. From the records, it appears that the NCB,

Ireland provided information that the petitioner allegedly

transferred an amount of 950 Euros from the credit card of Ms.

Carmel Fox to a rewire bank account which was further

transferred to M/s Leconix Business Centre Pvt. Ltd. having its

registered office at Kolkata. Subsequently, the name of the

petitioner has been arrayed as accused no.3 in the prosecution

complaint based on the subject ECIR.

17. The grant of bail in the cases of P.M.L.A. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

requires consideration in terms of section-45 of the Act and

therefore, it will be relevant to quote Section 45 of the P.M.L.A.,

2002, which reads as under:-

"45. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence [under this Act] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless--

(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given a opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and

(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail:

Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm [or 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:

Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence punishable under section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by--

(i) the Director; or

(ii) any officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or special order made in this behalf Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

by that Government.

(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorised, by the Central Government by a general or special order, and, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.] (2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in sub-section (1) is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.

Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that the expression "Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable" shall mean and shall be deemed to have always meant that all offences under this Act shall be cognizable offences and non- bailable offences notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), and accordingly the officers authorised under this Act are empowered to arrest an accused without warrant, subject to the fulfillment of conditions under section 19 and subject to the conditions enshrined under this section."

18. In the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary

vs. Union of India reported as (2023) 12 SCC 1, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court while upholding the Constitutionality of section

45 of the P.M.L.A. has held that though the aforesaid provision

imposes stringent twin conditions for grant of bail, but the

aforesaid statutory condition does not impose an absolute Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

restraint on the grant of bail and the discretion vests in the

Court, which is to be exercised fairly, judiciously and not in an

arbitrary manner. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid

decision read as under:-

"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 Sharma [(2005) 5 SCC 294] held as under :-

"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 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

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. 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, Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

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 Sharma. 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 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 Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466, 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."

19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent

decision rendered in the case of Manish Sisodiya vs.

Directorate of Enforcement reported as (2024) 12 SCC 660 has

clarified and crystallized the law on the aspect of harmonization

between the stringent twin conditions under section 45 of the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

P.M.L.A. and the valuable and treasured right to personal liberty

enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The

relevant portion of the aforesaid decision read as under:-

"47. We find that, on account of a long period of incarceration running for around 17 months and the trial even not having been commenced, the appellant has been deprived of his right to speedy trial.

48. As observed by this Court, the right to speedy trial and the right to liberty are sacrosanct rights. On denial of these rights, the trial court as well as the High Court ought to have given due weightage to this factor.

49. Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider an application for bail in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [(2024) 9 SCC 813] wherein the accused was prosecuted under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This Court surveyed the entire law right from the judgment of this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P. [(1978) 1 SCC 240], Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565], Hussainara Khatoon (1) v. State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81], Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713] and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [(2022) 10 SCC 51] .

50. The Court observed thus: (Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh case "17. 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

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 crime."

51. The Court also reproduced the observations made in Gudikanti Narasimhulu [(1978) 1 SCC 240], which read thus:

"8. In the aforesaid context, we may remind the trial courts and the High Courts of what came to be observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P. (1978) 1 SCC 240. We quote (SCC p. 243, para 5):

'5. ... What is often forgotten, and therefore warrants reminder, is the object to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal. Lord Russel, C.J., said [R. v. Rose (1898) 18 Cox CC 717]:

"I observe that in this case bail was refused for the prisoner. It cannot be too strongly impressed on the magistracy of the country that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment, but that the requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial."

52. The Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh case further observed that, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

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 recognise the principle that "bail is rule and jail is exception".

53. In the present case, in ED matter as well as CBI matter, 493 witnesses have been named. The case involves thousands of pages of documents and over a lakh pages of digitised documents. It is thus clear that there is not even the remotest possibility of the trial being concluded in the near future. In our view, keeping the appellant behind bars for an unlimited period of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. As observed time and again, the prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial.

54. As observed by this Court in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240, the objective to keep a person in judicial custody pending trial or disposal of an appeal is to secure the attendance of the prisoner at trial.

55. In the present case, the appellant is having deep roots in the society. There is no possibility of him fleeing away from the country and not being Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

available for facing the trial. In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State.

56. Insofar as the apprehension given by the learned ASG regarding the possibility of tampering the evidence is concerned, it is to be noted that the case largely depends on documentary evidence which is already seized by the prosecution. As such, there is no possibility of tampering with the evidence. Insofar as the concern with regard to influencing the witnesses is concerned, the said concern can be addressed by imposing stringent conditions upon the appellant." (emphasis supplied).

20. In light of the aforesaid judgments, it is

evident that the stringent requirement under section 45 of the

P.M.L.A. for grant of bail i.e. the twin conditions do not create

an absolute restraint or barrier in granting bail on the grounds of

delay in conclusion of trial and long period of incarceration.

21. In cases involving money laundering, the

PMLA provides stringent conditions under section 45 for grant

of bail, however such provisions have to be harmoniously

interpreted with the right of personal liberty enshrined under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that

statutory bar under such bail provisions cannot override the

rights of personal liberty and speedy trial, nor can such statutory

restrictions be construed as an instrument for indefinite

incarceration.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Prem Prakash vs. Union of India through Directorate of

Enforcement reported as (2024) 9 SCC 787 relying upon Vijay

Madanlal Choudhary (supra) has held as under:-

"12. All that Section 45 PMLA mentions is that certain conditions are to be satisfied. The principle that, "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" is only a paraphrasing of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Liberty of the individual is always a Rule and deprivation is the exception. Deprivation can only be by the procedure established by law, which has to be a valid and reasonable procedure. Section 45 PMLA by imposing twin conditions does not re- write this principle to mean that deprivation is the norm and liberty is the exception. As set out earlier, all that is required is that in cases where bail is subject to the satisfaction of twin conditions, those conditions must be satisfied.

13. Independently and as has been emphatically reiterated in Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 660, relying on Ramkripal Meena v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 684 and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v.

State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813, where the accused has already been in custody for a considerable number of months and there being no likelihood of conclusion of trial within a short span, the rigours of Section 45 PMLA can be suitably relaxed to afford conditional liberty. Further, Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 660 reiterated the holding in Javed Gulam Nabi Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813], that keeping persons behind the bars for unlimited periods of time in the hope of speedy completion of trial would deprive the fundamental right of persons under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty ought not to be permitted to become the punishment without trial.

14. In fact, Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate, (2024) 12 SCC 660 reiterated the holding in Manish Sisodia v. CBI (2024) 12 SCC 691 : wherein it was held as under : (Manish Sisodia case [Manish Sisodia v. CBI, (2024) 12 SCC 691 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1393], SCC paras 34-35) "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 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, kidnapping 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

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."

15. It is in this background that Section 45 PMLA needs to be understood and applied. Article 21 being a higher constitutional right, statutory provisions should align themselves to the said higher constitutional edict." (emphasis supplied)

23. In another decision, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of V. Senthil Balaji (supra) has held as under:-

"25. Considering the gravity of the offences in such statutes, expeditious disposal of trials for the crimes under these statutes is contemplated. Moreover, such statutes contain provisions laying down higher threshold for the grant of bail. The expeditious disposal of the trial is also warranted considering the higher threshold set for the grant of bail. Hence, the requirement of expeditious disposal of cases must be read into these statutes. Inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial and the higher threshold for the grant of bail cannot go together. It is a well-settled principle of our criminal Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

jurisprudence that "bail is the rule, and jail is the exception." These stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time.

26. There are a series of decisions of this Court starting from the decision in the case of K.A. Najeeb2, which hold that such stringent provisions for the grant of bail do not take away the power of Constitutional Courts to grant bail on the grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution of India. We have already referred to paragraph 17 of the said decision, which lays down that the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed in a reasonable time and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. One of the reasons is that if, because of such provisions, incarceration of an undertrial accused is continued for an unreasonably long time, the provisions may be exposed to the vice of being violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

within a reasonable time. What a reasonable time is will depend on the provisions under which the accused is being tried and 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. Najeeb2, 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 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 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

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.

28. Some day, the courts, especially the Constitutional Courts, will have to take a call on a peculiar situation that arises in our justice delivery system. There are cases where clean acquittal is granted by the criminal courts to the accused after very long incarceration as an undertrial. When we say clean acquittal, we are excluding the cases where the witnesses have turned hostile or there is a bona fide defective investigation. In such cases of clean acquittal, crucial years in the life of the accused are lost. In a given case, it may amount to violation of rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution which may give rise to a claim for compensation.

29. As stated earlier, the appellant has been incarcerated for 15 months or more for the offence punishable under the PMLA. In the facts of the case, the trial of the scheduled offences and, consequently, the PMLA offence is not likely to be completed in three to four years or even more. If the appellant's detention is continued, it will amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of speedy trial." (emphasis supplied).

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

24. It is now settled principle that the stringent

statutory provisions under section 45 of the PMLA has to be

harmonized with the right to personal liberty enshrined under

Article 21 of the Constitution in light of the decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of V. Senthil Balaji (supra)

and Manish Sisodia (supra). The prolonged incarceration

before even being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be

permitted to become a punishment without trial and when there

is long period of incarceration and the trial is not likely to be

concluded soon then the accused cannot be deprived of his

liberty and weightage has to be given while considering his bail

application. In the case of V. Senthil Balaji (supra), the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has categorically held that if the Court

concludes that there is no possibility of the trial concluding in a

reasonable time, the power of granting bail can always be

exercised by Constitutional Courts on the ground of violation of

part-III of the Constitution notwithstanding the statutory

provisions.

25. In the present case, there are altogether 31

prosecution witnesses and 44 documents, which runs into 6125

pages and the trial itself will take considerable time and it is not

reasonably excepted to conclude soon and therefore, it would Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

not be in the interest of justice and would be affront to the

fundamental rights of the petitioner, to keep him in custody as

under-trial for an indefinite period. Further, the allegations

levelled against the petitioner involves complex questions and

issues which warrants detailed appreciation of evidence which is

to be considered by the Special Court during trial.

26. In the considered opinion of this Court, the

petitioner, who is in custody since 20.12.2023 having clean

antecedent and similarly situated co-accused persons have been

granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court, deserves to be

enlarged on bail on the grounds of his prolonged incarceration

and that there being no possibility of conclusion of trial in near

future. Further, keeping the petitioner in custody without

actually being held guilty would be against Article 21 of the

Constitution of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the cases of V. Senthil Balaji (supra) and

Manish Sisodia (supra).

27. Accordingly, let the petitioner be released on

bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One

Lakh) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge

(PMLA), Patna / concerned Court below, in connection with Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

Special Trial (P.M.L.A.) Case No.12 of 2023, arising out of

E.C.I.R. No. PTZO/27/2023, subject to the following

conditions:-

i. The petitioner shall not leave the country

without the permission of the Trial Court;

ii. The petitioner shall appear before the Special

Court / concerned Court as and when the

matter shall be taken up i.e. on each and

every date.

iii. The petitioner shall provide his mobile

number to the Enforcement Directorate at the

time of his release, which shall be kept in

working condition and active at all times and

he shall not switch off or change the same

without prior intimation to the Enforcement

Directorate during the period of bail.

iv. In case, the petitioner changes his address,

he will inform the Enforcement Directorate

as well as to the concerned Court.

v. The petitioner shall not indulge in any

criminal activity during the bail period.

vi. The petitioner shall not influence the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58371 of 2025 dt.16-01-2026

prosecution witnesses directly or remotely.

vii. The prosecuting agency will be at liberty to

file an application for modification /

recalling of the order passed by this Court if

the petitioner violates any of the conditions

imposed by this Court.

28. Accordingly, the present bail application is

allowed with the aforesaid conditions.

29. Needless to state that this Court has not

expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

pawan/-

AFR/NAFR                N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE                10.12.2025
Uploading Date          16.01.2026
Transmission Date       16.01.2026