Summary
The Court granted regular bail to the appellant, a former promoter of the Amtek group, in a money-laundering prosecution, holding that about 16 months of custody with no cognizance yet taken, investigation against him concluded, largely documentary evidence and no early prospect of trial violated his right to a speedy trial under Article 21, despite the twin conditions in Section 45 PMLA.
Issues
- Whether prolonged pre-trial custody without likelihood of early trial entitles an accused under the PMLA to bail notwithstanding Section 45.
- Whether economic offences can be treated as a single class warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the allegations of influencing a witness and dissipating attached properties justified continued custody.
Provisions considered
- Section 45, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002The appellant sought bail under this section; the Court held that the statutory restrictions on bail cannot result in indefinite pre-trial detention in breach of Article 21 where the trial is unlikely to conclude in reasonable time and the maximum sentence is seven years. (¶¶ 2, 16, 19)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaTreated the right to speedy trial as part of Article 21, applicable irrespective of the nature of the crime, and held that the appellant's continued incarceration violated it. (¶¶ 15, 16, 18, 19)
- Section 223 (proviso), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023Noted that the Special Judge's notice to the proposed accused under the proviso was challenged by the respondent in the High Court, resulting in an eight-month stay; the delay was attributed to the respondent, not the appellant. (¶ 21)
- Section 483, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023The bail application in the High Court was moved under this section read with Section 45 PMLA. (¶¶ 2, 8)
Held
- In deciding bail the court weighs the gravity of the offence in the facts of each case, including the sentence prescribed, the object of the special Act and the attending circumstances; economic offences are not a homogeneous class and bail cannot be denied by placing them all in one category. (¶¶ 15, 18)
- The right to speedy trial under Article 21 is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence; prolonged incarceration of an undertrial without commencement or reasonable progress of trial converts pre-trial detention into punishment. Under statutes such as the PMLA, where the maximum sentence is seven years, constitutional courts may grant bail for prolonged custody where the trial is unlikely to conclude in reasonable time. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- On the facts, the appellant had joined the investigation, was the only one of 28 individuals arrested, the investigation against him was recorded as concluded, cognizance had not been taken, the case was at the stage of scrutiny of documents, the evidence was mainly documentary and already with the prosecution, and there was no likelihood of trial starting soon; his continued custody violated Article 21. (¶ 19)
- The allegation that the appellant told a witness not to join the investigation was rejected as incredible because he was in custody well before she was named as a witness; the delay in proceedings was attributable to the respondent's own challenge in the High Court; and no material linked the appellant to the post-attachment sale of properties belonging to another company. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court's order of 19.08.2025 set aside; appellant to be released on bail pending trial on terms fixed by the trial court, and additionally to furnish a contact number to the Directorate, surrender his passport and not leave India without the trial court's permission.