Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000047-000047 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 55164/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | SANJAY KUMAR J; ALOK ARADHE J |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents |
| Type of Law | Criminal law – bail under PMLA and BNSS |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that Article 21’s guarantee of a speedy trial cannot be overshadowed by PMLA’s bail restrictions when detention extends without reasonable trial progress. Economic offences must be assessed case-by-case; blanket denial of bail is impermissible. Where evidence is documentary and investigation against the accused concluded, prolonged custody violates Article 21. Delays attributable to the prosecution cannot justify continued pretrial detention. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The Court reconciled Article 21’s right to speedy trial with PMLA’s mandatory bail regime; held that economic offences vary in gravity and cannot be treated as homogeneous; applied precedents on pretrial detention; examined trial delays attributable to the prosecuting agency; assessed tampering risk against documentary evidence already seized. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant, former promoter and non-executive Chairman of the Amtek Group, faced FIRs alleging bank frauds of Rs. 385.35 crores and Rs. 289 crores and ECIRs for money laundering. He cooperated with the ED, was arrested on 09.07.2024, and remained in custody for 16 months 20 days. Bail applications under Section 45 PMLA and Section 483 BNSS were rejected by the trial court and Delhi HC. The High Court had stayed trial proceedings for eight months on an ED challenge, later withdrawn. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts dealing with PMLA bail petitions |
| Persuasive For |
|
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be negated by PMLA’s mandatory bail restrictions when detention exceeds reasonable timelines.
- Economic offences require fact-specific assessments; blanket classification for bail denial is impermissible.
- Delays attributable to the prosecution or investigating agency (e.g., HC stay on notices) weigh in favour of bail.
- Documentary evidence already in ED’s custody diminishes the risk of tampering, reducing the need for continued detention.
- Allegations of witness tampering or asset dissipation must be substantiated; mere inference is insufficient once the accused is already in custody.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Article 21 vs. PMLA bail regime: Held that fundamental right to speedy trial overrides PMLA’s twin‐condition bail bar when pretrial detention extends without trial progress.
- Case-by-case analysis of economic offences: Economic crimes differ in gravity and facts; courts must avoid blanket denial of bail based solely on the offence’s category.
- Precedents on prolonged detention: Applied Manish Sisodia, P. Chidambaram, V. Senthil Balaji and Padam Chand Jain to reaffirm that extended incarceration without trial converts detention into punishment.
- Attribution of delay: Trial stagnation due to ED’s challenge and eight-month HC stay undermines justification for custody.
- Risk of tampering: Examined documentary nature of evidence already seized; concluded minimal risk, negating the need for ongoing detention.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Age (64) and multiple health ailments; custody of 16 months 20 days violates liberty and speedy-trial rights.
- Fully cooperated; investigation against him concluded and no trial commenced.
- Allegations of influencing witness (Ms. Anuradha Kapur) and asset dissipation unsubstantiated.
- Economic offences cannot form a separate class for automatic bail denial.
Respondent (ED):
- Gravity of alleged fraud warrants strict adherence to PMLA’s mandatory bail conditions.
- Appellant influential, directed a dummy director not to join investigation.
- Dissipation of immovable property proceeds post-attachment; risk of asset flight.
- Delay in trial attributable to the appellant’s litigation strategy.
- Proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA does not apply.
Factual Background
In December 2022, IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra filed FIRs alleging frauds of Rs. 385.35 crores and Rs. 289 crores against the appellant and others. The ED registered ECIRs in March 2023 for money laundering under the PMLA. The appellant, former non-executive Chairman of Amtek Group companies, cooperated during summons and search operations but was arrested on 09.07.2024. He sought bail under Section 45 PMLA and Section 483 BNSS; both the trial court and Delhi High Court rejected regular bail, although interim bail was granted on medical grounds. Trial proceedings before the Special Judge were stayed for eight months on an ED challenge, later withdrawn, and trial has not commenced.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 45 PMLA: Imposes mandatory “twin conditions” for bail; proviso allows exceptions where investigation is complete and no prima facie case.
- Section 483 BNSS: Empowers High Courts to entertain PMLA bail applications.
- Proviso to Section 223 BNSS: Notice to proposed accused persons, which triggered an HC challenge and delayed trial.
- Article 21 (Constitution): Right to speedy trial cannot be curtailed by special-statute bail bars when delay is unreasonable.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Both Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar and Hon’ble Justice Alok Aradhe delivered the judgment in full concurrence; there is no dissenting opinion.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
- 📅 Time-Sensitive