TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 167
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sons including the then Chief Minister of Karnataka. Pursuant to the investigation conducted, accused Nos. 1 to 4 were dropped from the array of accused in the predicate offence which had become Crime No. 11 of 2024. Who remained in the fray were other accused, one of whom is the petitioner. The issue in the lis does not pertain to the predicate offence. The issue pertains to the Enforcement Case Information Report ('ECIR') registered by the Enforcement Directorate against the petitioner and others. The petitioner, in the said ECIR, is accused No. 1. The Enforcement Directorate on conduct of investigation and after registration of ECIR filed its complaint before the concerned Court under Sections 44 and 45 of the Act on 14-11-2025 now arraigning the petitioner as the sole accused in the ECIR. 3.2. The petitioner prefers an application seeking his enlargement on bail before the concerned Court, which comes to be rejected. After rejection of bail application before the concerned Court, the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court in Criminal Petition No. 14793 of 2025. A coordinate Bench by an order dated 20-01-2026 while answering the application seeking enlargement on bail, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g with the evidence or influencing the witnesses, was rejected by the Court. 30. Again, in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI - (2022) 10 SCC 51, this Court referred to Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab - (2005) 7 SCC 387 and Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab - (1977) 4 SCC 291, to emphasise that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right within the broad scope of Article 21 of the Constitution. 31. In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary - (2023) 12 SCC 1, this Court while highlighting the evil of economic offences like money-laundering, and its adverse impact on the society and citizens, observed that arrest infringes the fundamental right to life. This Court referred to Section 19 of the PML Act, for the in-built safeguards to be adhered to by the authorised officers to ensure fairness, objectivity and accountability [See also Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India - (2024) 7 SCC 576]. 32. Vijay Madanlal Choudhary - (2023) 12 SCC 1, also held that Section 436-A of the Code can apply to offences under the PML Act, as it effectuates the right to speedy trial, a facet of the right to life, except for a valid ground such as where the trial is delayed at the instance of the ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cond order of this Court, it will be apposite to refer to certain observations made by this Court in its first order. 66. The Court had reiterated the observation made in paras-29 to 35 of Manish Sisodia-1 and has made certain other relevant observations that are extracted below:- 36. In view of the assurance given at the Bar on behalf of the prosecution that they shall conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within next six to eight months, we give liberty to the appellant Manish Sisodia to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances, or in case the trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail's pace in next three months. If any application for bail is filed in the above circumstances, the same would be considered by the trial court on merits without being influenced by the dismissal of the earlier bail application, including the present judgment. Observations made above, re.: right to speedy trial, will, however, be taken into consideration. The appellant Manish Sisodia may also file an application for interim bail in case of ill health and medical emergency due to illness of his wife. Such application would be also examined on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecure the accused to stand trial. The Apex Court has referred to the right of speedy trial flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A specific reference is made to the judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (supra) insofar as it refers to Section 436A of the Code as being applicable to offences under PMLA and observes that Section 436A effectuates the right to speedy trial being a facet of right to life, except where such delay is attributable to the accused himself. It re-emphasizes that:- "34. Detention or jail before being pronounced of guilty of an offence should not become punishment without crime. 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...." 72. It is relevant to notice that it is in the context of an order granting bail under PMLA that the Apex Court has reiterated the principle, 'bail is rule and jail is exception'. The observations at para-52 of Manish Sisodia-3 reads as follows:- "52. The Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh case - (2024 9 SCC 813 further observed that, over a period of time, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....without trial. Like in the case of Manish Sisodia (supra) in the present case also thousands of documents are required to be considered at the stage of trial, so also around 50 witnesses are required to be examined. The main evidence in the present case is documentary in nature, which is already seized by the prosecution agency. As such, there is no possibility of the same being tampered with." 76. What would be of significance is that the observations were made by the Apex Court as extracted hereinabove, while specifically dealing with the contention of the learned Additional Solicitor General that, no bail could be granted unless twin conditions of Section 45 of PMLA are complied with (see para-4). 77. Accordingly, the Three Judge Bench of Apex Court while reiterating the order in Manish Sisodia-3 (supra) has set at rest the primacy of constitutional rights flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution of India vis-à vis the statutory provisions of Section 45 of PMLA. 78. It is also an independent principle of bail jurisprudence that the object of pre-trial detention cannot be punitive nor could it be construed to constitute moral conviction. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 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." 80. It thus becomes clear that the Apex Court has reiterated the supremacy of rights flowing from Part-III of the Constitution of India which stand abridged where there is no possibility of trial concluding within a reasonable time and the constitutional courts on such principle enlarge t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n bail is that of the Apex Court in Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement - 2026 SCC OnLine SC 30. The observations at para-15 to para-18 reiterate and sum up the legal position, which is as follows:- "15. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have carefully perused the record. The court while dealing with the prayer for grant of bail has to consider gravity of offence, which has to be ascertained in the facts and circumstances of each case. One of the circumstances to consider the gravity of offences is also the term of sentence i.e., prescribed for the offence, the accused is alleged to have committed - [P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2020) 13 SCC 791]. The court has also to take into account the object of the special Act, the gravity of offence and the attending circumstances along with period of sentence. All economic offences cannot be classified into one group as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the Court to categorize all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis - [Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt of trial in the near future. It is observed at para-19 as follows:- "19. ..There is no likelihood of trial commencing in the near future. The continued incarceration in such circumstances particularly where the evidence which is primarily documentary in nature, is already in custody of the Prosecution, violates the right of the appellant to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." Accordingly, taking note of all the above factors, the Court in the above factual matrix enlarged the accused on bail. 85. The consistent legal reasoning adopted while enlarging the accused on bail is in the context of long detention, factually dense material relied upon and absence of any possibility of trial being concluded early. Further, the Apex Court in Senthil Balaji (supra) has emphasized that judicial discretion is vested in the constitutional courts which is to be exercised in light of the particular factual matrix. 86. Accordingly, it is clear that the ground of speedy trial, context of delay in trial and long incarceration are by itself independent grounds to seek for being enlarged on bail on the premise of rights flowing from Article....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of change in circumstances or if trial is protracted and proceeds at a snail's pace in the next three months or if the trial is not concluded within six to eight months. 91. Subsequently, in Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1498 [Manish Sisodia-2] when the accused had approached the Apex Court once again, the Apex Court noticing that the period of six to eight months fixed by the previous order [Manish Sisodia-1 (supra)] not having expired, reserved liberty to revive his prayer to move afresh after filing of complaint/charge-sheet. 92. Finally, the Apex Court in the third round of approach whereby a challenge was made to the rejection of application by the High Court in Manish Sisodia-3 (supra) enlarged the petitioner on bail recording that there was remote possibility of trial being concluded in the near future, that keeping the appellant behind the bars for an unlimited period of time would deprive his fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, that prolonged incarceration before being pronounced guilty of an offence should not be permitted to become punishment without trial. 93. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re, the petitioner must be enlarged on bail owing to the facts obtaining at this juncture and change in circumstances. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General Sri K. Arvind Kamath would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that merely because changed circumstances have come about, the earlier order rejecting the bail cannot be brushed aside. He would submit that the Apex Court in NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU v. MOHIT AGGARWAL reported in (2022) 18 SCC 374 has clearly held that delay in trial alone cannot be the reason for grant of bail to an accused, particularly when the offences are found to be grave. By taking this Court through the statement of objections, he would contend that economic offences must not be shown any indulgence, particularly for the petitioner to be enlarged on bail. He seeks dismissal of the petition. 6. The learned senior counsel for petitioner would join issue in contending that the coordinate Bench holds that the petitioner can approach this Court directly after completion of the period of three months. The period is now 6 months old. Law permits accused to be enlarged on bail, particularly on the facts obtaining in the case at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er bail applications were rejected. In such cases, the court also has a duty to record the fresh grounds which persuade it to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications. 31. At the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused." 9.2. In JAVED GULAM NABI SHAIKH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (2024) 9 SCC 813 the Apex Court has held as follows: ".... .... .... 7. Having regard to the aforesaid, we wonder by what period of time, the trial will ultimately conclude. Howsoever serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned in Article 21. The question which would, however, arise is as to what would be the consequence if a person accused of an offence is denied speedy trial and is sought to be deprived of his liberty by imprisonment as a result of a long-delayed trial in violation of his fundamental right under Article 21." 11. The aforesaid observations have resonated, time and again, in several judgments, such as Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar [Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar, (1981) 3 SCC 671: 1981 SCC (Cri) 791] and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak [Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225: 1992 SCC (Cri) 93]. In the latter the court re-emphasised the right to speedy trial, and further held that an accused, facing prolonged trial, has no option: (Abdul Rehman Antulay case [Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225: 1992 SCC (Cri) 93], SCC p. 269, para 84) "84. ... The State or complainant prosecutes him. It is, thus, the obligation of the State or the complainant, as the case may be, to proceed with the case with reasonable promptitude. Particularly, in this country, where the large majority of accused come from poorer and weaker sections of the soc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lemmer's "The Prison Community" published in 1940 [ Donald Clemmer, The Prison Community (1968) Holt, Rinehart & Winston, which is referred to in Tomasz Sobecki, "Donald Clemmer's Concept of Prisonisation", available at:<https://www.tkp.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/ 2020/12/Sobecki_sklad.pdf> accessed on 23-3-2023).]). Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials - especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily." (emphasis in original) 13. The requirement of law as being envisaged under Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter being referred to as "the 2008 Act") mandates that the trial under the Act of any offence by a Special Court shall be held on day-to-day basis on all working days and have precedence over the trial....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the appellant shall not leave the limits of Mumbai City and shall mark his presence at the NIA office or police station concerned once every fifteen days. Any other condition which the trial court may deem fit to impose, it may do so in accordance with law." 9.3. In MANISH SISODIA v. DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT (2024) 12 SCC 660 the Apex Court has held as follows: "..... ..... ....... 34. Insofar as the contention of the learned ASG that since the conditions as provided under Section 45 of the PMLA are not satisfied, the appellant is not entitled to grant of bail is concerned, it will be apposite to refer to the first order [Manish Sisodia v. CBI, (2024) 12 SCC 691] of this Court. No doubt that this Court in its first order [Manish Sisodia v. CBI, (2024) 12 SCC 691] in para 28, after recapitulating in para 27 as to what was stated in the charge-sheet filed by CBI against the appellant, observed that, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the Court was not inclined to accept the prayer for grant of bail at that stage. However, certain paragraphs of the said order cannot be read in isolation from the other paragraphs. The order will have to be read in its enti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... trial within a short span, coupled with the fact that the petitioner is already on bail in the predicate offence, and keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it seems to us that the rigours of Section 45 of the Act can be suitably relaxed to afford conditional liberty to the petitioner. Ordered accordingly." 37. In the light of the specific observations of this Court in para 34 of the first order [Manish Sisodia v. CBI, (2024) 12 SCC 691], we are not inclined to accept the submission of the learned ASG that the provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA would come in the way of consideration of the application of the appellant for grant of bail. 38. From the first order [Manish Sisodia v. CBI, (2024) 12 SCC 691] of this Court, it would be clear that an assurance was given at the Bar on behalf of the prosecution that they shall conclude the trial by taking appropriate steps within next 6-8 months. In view of the said statement, this Court did not consider the application of the appellant for bail at that stage, however, granted liberty to the appellant to move a fresh application for bail in case of change in circumstances, or in case the tria....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....], this Court specifically observed that though the observations on the aspect of merit were not binding, the observations of right to speedy trial were required to be taken into consideration. 42. The learned Special Judge and the learned Single Judge of the High Court have considered the applications on merits as well as on the grounds of delay and denial of right to speedy trial. We see no error in the judgments and orders of the learned Special Judge as well as the High Court in considering the merits of the matter. In view of the observations made by this Court in the first order [Manish Sisodia v. CBI, (2024) 12 SCC 691], they were entitled to consider the same. However, the question that arises is as to whether the trial court and the High Court have correctly considered the observations made by this Court with regard to right to speedy trial and prolonged period of incarceration. The courts below have rejected the claim of the appellant applying the triple test as contemplated under Section 45 of the PMLA. In our view, this is in ignorance of the observations made by this Court in para 34 of the first order [Manish Sisodia v. CBI, (2024) 12 SCC 691] wherein this Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s pertinent to note that all these applications have been allowed by the learned trial court. It is further pertinent to note that some of these orders were also challenged before the High Court wherein stay was granted. However, a statement was made on behalf of the prosecution before this Court when the first order [Manish Sisodia v. CBI, (2024) 12 SCC 691] was passed that the said petitions filed under Section 482CrPC would be withdrawn. The said statement is recorded in para 33 of the first order [Manish Sisodia v. CBI, (2024) 12 SCC 691] of this Court. We may state that, when we specifically asked the learned ASG to point out any order wherein the learned trial Judge found any of the applications of the appellant to be frivolous, not a single order could be pointed out. 45. In that view of the matter, we find that the finding of the learned trial Judge that it is the appellant who is responsible for delaying the trial is not supported by the record. The learned Single Judge of the High Court endorses the finding of the trial court on the ground that the accused persons have taken three months' time from 19-10-2023 to 19-1-2024 for inspection of "un-relied upon doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate of Maharashtra [Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813 : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 222] 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. [Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 115], Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 465], Hussainara Khatoon (1) v. State of Bihar [Hussainara Khatoon (1) v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 23], Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 : 2021 INSC 50] and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 : (2023) 1 SCC (Cri) 1]. 50. The Court observed thus: (Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh case [Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) 9 SCC 813 : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri) 222], SCC p. 820, para 17) "17. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter, 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 [Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 115], 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 available for facing the trial. In any case, conditions can be imposed to address the concern of the State. 56. Insofar as t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....into account the object of the special Act, the gravity of offence and the attending circumstances along with period of sentence. All economic offences cannot be classified into one group as it may involve various activities and may differ from one case to another. Therefore, it is not advisable on the part of the Court to categorize all the offences into one group and deny bail on that basis. It is well settled that 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 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. The aforesaid proposition was quoted with approval by another two-Judge Bench of this Court and it was held that long period of incarceration for around 17 months and the trial not even having commenced, the appellant in that case has been deprived of his right to speedy trial. 16. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in V. Senthil Bala....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e months has expired. There are 210 witnesses to be examined in the proceeding. There is no likelihood of trial commencing in the near future. The continued incarceration in such circumstances, particularly where the evidence which is primarily documentary in nature, is already in custody of the prosecution, violates the right of the appellant to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." (Emphasis supplied at each instance) 10. The Apex Court, even in cases of offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 has chosen to grant bail on grounds of delayed trial or on changed circumstances. The Apex Court holds that at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation on merits should not be undertaken. The accused has a right to file successive applications for grant of bail. The Court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail application was rejected; the Court has a duty to record fresh grounds which persuaded it to take a different view from the one earlier taken on the bail application. 11. The Apex Court in ARVIND DHAM....