Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Accused in Rs. 46,000 Crore PMLA Case, Citing Overburdened Trial Process, Prolonged Custody, and Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21

Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court granted regular bail to the two applicants involved in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, involving allegations of laundering Rs. 46,000 crore. The Court, emphasizing the applicants’ prolonged pre-trial custody and the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21, highlighted that the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA should not result in indefinite detention without trial. Given the applicants’ 9-month custody, lack of evidence of flight risk or tampering with evidence, and ongoing delays in trial proceedings, the Court directed their release on bail.

Facts:
The case originated from allegations against former promoters of Bhushan Steel Ltd. (BSL), who allegedly siphoned Rs. 46,000 crore from public funds, using a complex network of 150 shell companies. The predicate offense was initially investigated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO), which filed a complaint under the Companies Act and IPC sections relating to fraud. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) later registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), leading to a prosecution complaint in 2023 and a supplementary complaint in 2024, implicating numerous accused.

Issues:

1. Whether the prolonged custody of the accused violates their right to a speedy trial.
2. Whether the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA mandate continued incarceration of the accused when the trial remains delayed.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The applicants argued they were falsely implicated, having only fulfilled routine administrative duties at BSL. They contended that their alleged involvement in company transactions was minimal, as they neither held decision-making power nor benefitted financially.
• Citing health issues, age, societal roots, and the potential for significant trial delays, they sought bail, highlighting that similarly situated co-accused had already been released.
• They emphasized their compliance with prior investigative demands, joining investigations multiple times without attempting to influence witnesses or evidence.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The ED argued that the applicants had played a critical role in facilitating the financial offenses and were integral to the conspiracy. Given the seriousness of the fraud and potential risk of absconding, ED argued for denial of bail.
• The agency noted that Section 45’s stringent bail conditions were applicable, and the applicants’ bail in the predicate offense did not extend to the separate offense of money laundering.

Analysis of the Law:
The Court analyzed the rigorous bail conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, balancing them against the applicants’ right to a timely trial. It referenced Supreme Court rulings, including Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement and V. Senthil Balaji v. Directorate of Enforcement, which underscored the fundamental nature of personal liberty, particularly in cases of delayed trials. The Court noted that the PMLA’s stringent provisions should not be wielded as tools for prolonged incarceration without trial.

Precedent Analysis:
The Court cited multiple precedents, reinforcing the principle that bail should be the norm, not the exception, when trial delays infringe on an accused’s fundamental rights. Supreme Court judgments, including Vijay Nair v. Directorate of Enforcement and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, underscored that, in protracted trials, even rigorous bail conditions under special statutes like PMLA and UAPA should yield to constitutional safeguards.

Court’s Reasoning:
The Court emphasized that constitutional rights enshrined in Article 21, including the right to a speedy trial, are paramount. It observed that the trial process was burdened by over 156 accused, 82 witnesses, and extensive documentary evidence, which would likely prolong the proceedings. In this context, detaining the applicants indefinitely without trial, while similarly placed co-accused had been released, would contravene the principle of fairness and equity.

Conclusion:
Granting bail, the Court mandated the applicants to submit a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with a surety, restrict their travel without prior court permission, and maintain regular communication with the investigating officer. The Court clarified that these observations were limited to bail considerations and did not reflect on the merits of the case.

Implications:
This decision reiterates that stringent bail conditions in financial offenses, while protecting public interest, must not infringe upon constitutional rights through indefinite detention. It reinforces the judiciary’s role in balancing statutory mandates with fundamental rights, especially under economic offense statutes like PMLA.

Also Read – Allahabad High Court Rectifies Typographical Error in Bail Application Order to Ensure Procedural Integrity and Preserve Judicial Accuracy