Does the right to speedy trial under Article 21 override the mandatory twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA?

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Supreme Court confirms Article 21’s right to speedy trial is paramount even under special statutes with stringent bail provisions.
• Prolonged pretrial detention beyond 16 months where trial has not begun is impermissible and may warrant bail despite mandatory conditions.
• Economic offences cannot be lumped into a separate category for blanket bail denial; each case must consider sentence length and trial prospects.
• Documentary evidence already in custody of the prosecution weakens any allegation of tampering and supports bail.
• Delay attributable to the prosecuting agency (e.g., stays or lack of day-to-day hearings) can justify bail relief.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. Gravity of Offence vs. Speedy Trial
   • Gravity must be assessed with prescribed sentence; maximum seven years here.
   • Article 21’s right to speedy trial applies irrespective of offence seriousness.
2. Economic Offences Are Heterogeneous
   • Cannot deny bail across the board; each offence’s factual matrix matters.
3. Precedents on Prolonged Incarceration
   • Reliance on Manish Sisodia, Senthil Balaji, Padam Chand Jain: long custody (~3–17 months) without trial justified bail.
4. Investigation Complete; No Trial Progress
   • Appellant cooperated, investigation qua him concluded, cognizance not yet taken, trial pending scrutiny of documents.
5. Documentary Evidence Seized
   • Minimises risk of tampering; rebuttal of witness-influence allegations.
6. Custodial Delay Attributable to State
   • Eight-month stay on notice proceedings by ED; delay not imputable to appellant.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Appellant)

• Aged 64 with health issues; incarcerated ~16½ months without trial.
• Fully cooperated; investigation against him completed; no risk of tampering.
• Delay in trial attributable to ED’s own litigation (eight-month stay).
• No material link to alleged dissipation of properties; exaggeration of fraud figures.

Respondent (ED)

• Gravity of offence and influential status of appellant justify strict application of Section 45.
• Allegation of instructing witness not to cooperate and dissipation of properties post-attachment.
• Delay is not undue and cannot override mandatory bail twin conditions; proviso to Section 45(1) inapplicable.

Factual Background

Appellant, non-executive Chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd., was named in two FIRs on 21.12.2022 alleging fraud of over ₹674 crore under IPC and PC Act provisions. ED registered ECIRs on 21.03.2023 under the PMLA, recorded appellant’s statements in June 2024, and arrested him on 09.07.2024. A Special Judge and the Delhi High Court rejected his bail applications under Section 45 PMLA and Section 483 BNSS. As of the Supreme Court hearing, no cognizance had been taken, and trial had not commenced despite 210 witnesses listed.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 45, PMLA: imposes mandatory bail conditions (“twin conditions”)—custody not required and accused not guilty of money laundering. Supreme Court held Article 21 can override indefinite pretrial detention even under these conditions.
• Section 483, BNSS: procedure for bail under the new criminal statute aligned with PMLA provisions.
• Section 223, BNSS proviso: notice to accused—stay of proceedings challenged by ED for eight months.
• Article 21, Constitution: right to speedy trial cannot be ousted by special statutes; pretrial detention must not convert into de facto punishment.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed