2026 (3) TMI 254 - HC - Money Laundering

Right to Speedy Trial: bail granted where investigation complete, evidence documentary and trial unlikely to conclude soon.

Consideration of bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering framework balanced the twin conditions of Section 45 against Article 21 protections, ... Entitlement to bail in proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 - Section 45 PMLA twin conditions - Bail is the rule and jail is the exception - Right to speedy trial under Article 21 - violation of fundamental rights - Prolonged pre-trial detention converts into punishment - possibility of tampering with evidence. Section 45 PMLA twin conditions - Bail is the rule and jail is the exception - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Prem Prakash [2024 (8) TMI 1412 - SUPREME COURT] that Section 45 of the PMLA by imposing twin conditions does not re-write these principles to mean that deprivation is the norm and liberty is the exception. In the case of Manish Sisodia [2024 (8) TMI 614 - SUPREME COURT] the Hon’ble Apex Court has also dealt with prolonged incarceration of an accused vis-à-vis the constitutional mandate of liberty guaranteed under Article-21 of the Constitution of India. The case of V. Senthil Balaji [2024 (9) TMI 1497 - SUPREME COURT] is extremely significant as it has expressly held that the Constitutional Courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45(i)(ii) to become instruments in the hands of the ED to continue prolonged incarceration with no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time. The Court recognised that Section 45 imposes twin conditions which restrict the right to bail but are not an absolute bar; judicial discretion must be fair and guided by law. Relying on binding principles that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception' and on authorities emphasising the constitutional right to speedy trial, the Court held that where trial is not likely to conclude within a reasonable time and the accused have been subjected to prolonged pre-trial incarceration, statutory restrictions cannot be rendered a vehicle for indefinite detention. Given the facts that investigation has concluded, the prosecution relies largely on documentary evidence, there are numerous witnesses and voluminous documents yet to be exhibited, and the trial had not commenced with no realistic prospect of early conclusion, continued detention would convert pre-trial custody into punishment. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody and that bail could be granted subject to conditions to secure attendance and prevent interference with the process of trial. [Paras 18, 19, 21, 25, 26] Petitioners entitled to bail under PMLA in the circumstances; bail granted subject to conditions to ensure attendance and fair trial. Cooperation with investigation does not require self-incrimination - evasive replies do not amount to non-cooperation - Whether alleged non-cooperation by the petitioners justified denial of bail. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the prosecution's plea of non-cooperation and held that mere evasive replies or failure to provide the responses desired by investigating agency do not equate to non-cooperation, particularly where compulsion to self-incriminate is impermissible. The Court observed that allegations of non-cooperation were not established in the record and therefore could not be the basis for denying bail in the present circumstances; safeguards were nevertheless imposed in bail conditions prohibiting influence of witnesses and requiring attendance. [Paras 15, 23, 27] Non-cooperation not made out; cannot be relied upon to refuse bail, subject to conditions preventing witness tampering and ensuring attendance. Final Conclusion: Applying established precedents on PMLA bail jurisprudence and the constitutional right to speedy trial, the High Court granted bail to the petitioners on furnishing bonds and sureties and on specified conditions; no opinion was expressed on merits of the case. Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail in proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, where investigation is complete, trial has not commenced, there is no likelihood of conclusion of trial within a reasonable time, and petitioners have been in custody for a prolonged period.Analysis: The legal framework comprises Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which prescribes twin conditions for grant of bail in PMLA matters, and Article 21 of the Constitution of India guaranteeing the right to personal liberty including the right to a speedy trial. Recent authoritative decisions have held that while Section 45 imposes restrictions, it does not extinguish judicial discretion and that 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception'. Constitutional courts must consider prolonged pre-trial detention, the documentary nature of evidence already seized, the stage of proceedings, the likelihood of trial concluding within a reasonable time, and whether continued custody would convert pre-trial detention into punishment. On the facts here, prosecution relies on documentary evidence; investigation is complete; the prosecution proposes 27 witnesses and about 4,408 pages of documents; trial had not commenced and there was no prospect of conclusion in the near future; and the petitioners had been in custody for more than a year. The petitioners have undertaken to cooperate and there is no convincing material showing risk of flight or real prospect of tampering with evidence that cannot be mitigated by suitable conditions.Conclusion: Bail is granted to the petitioners on furnishing bonds of Rs. 1,00,000 each with two sureties of like amount, and subject to conditions concerning attendance, no leaving the country without permission, provision of contact details, and non-influence of witnesses. This conclusion is in favour of the petitioners.