2025 (2) TMI 904 - SC - Money Laundering

Bail Granted Under PMLA Due to Delay in Trial; Emphasizes Article 21 Rights and Ensures Speedy Trial.

UDHAW SINGH Versus ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

The SC allowed the appeal for bail under the PMLA, citing the appellant's prolonged custody of over a year without a foreseeable trial conclusion. ... Money Laundering - offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - appellant had been in custody for over a year with the trial not likely to conclude within a reasonable time - there are 225 witnesses cited, out of which only 1 has been examined - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the decision of this Court in the case of V.Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement [2024 (9) TMI 1497 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that '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.' Attention is invited to a decision of a coordinate Bench in the case of Union of India through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad [2025 (2) TMI 563 - SUPREME COURT]. After having perused the judgment, it is found that this was a case where the decisions of this Court in the case of Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb [2021 (2) TMI 1212 - SUPREME COURT] and in the case of V.Senthil Balaji were not applicable on facts. Perhaps that is the reason why these decisions were not placed before the coordinate Bench. The appellant shall be produced before the Special Court within a maximum period of one week from today. The Special Court shall enlarge the appellant on bail on appropriate terms and conditions including the condition of regularly and punctually attending the Special Court and cooperating with the Special Court for early disposal of the case. Conclusion - The principles laid down in previous cases were not applicable in that specific case, leading to the cancellation of bail. The appellant is directed to be produced before the Special Court within a week for bail to be granted on appropriate terms and conditions, including surrendering any passport and cooperating with the court for the early disposal of the case. Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court considered the issue of bail for an appellant who had been arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). The appellant had been in custody for over a year with the trial not likely to conclude within a reasonable time. The Court referred to the case of V.Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, which highlighted the need for Constitutional Courts to grant bail when trials are prolonged beyond reasonable limits, especially in cases where there is no possibility of a trial concluding within a reasonable time frame due to the severity of the offense and stringent bail conditions. The Court emphasized that the rights of undertrials under Article 21 of the Constitution of India must be protected, and undue delays in trials can lead to an infringement of the fundamental right to a speedy trial.The Court also referred to a decision in the case of Union of India through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad, where bail was cancelled as the trial was likely to be concluded in a reasonable time and the accused had been in custody for less than seven months before being granted bail. The Court found that the principles laid down in previous cases were not applicable in that specific case, leading to the cancellation of bail.Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal and directed that the appellant be produced before the Special Court within a week for bail to be granted on appropriate terms and conditions, including surrendering any passport and cooperating with the court for the early disposal of the case. The decision was made based on the understanding that the trial was unlikely to be completed within a reasonable time, and the appellant deserved bail pending trial to uphold the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.