Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, accused No.1 in an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), filed an application seeking regular bail before the High Court of Karnataka. The case arose from a private complaint under Section 223 of the BNSS against several persons, including the former Chief Minister of Karnataka. While some accused were dropped from the predicate offence, the petitioner remained as an accused. The ED filed its complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA on 14-11-2025, arraigning the petitioner as the sole accused. The petitioner's first bail application before the sessions court was rejected, and a subsequent petition before the High Court (Criminal Petition No.14793 of 2025) was also rejected by a coordinate Bench on 20-01-2026. However, the coordinate Bench granted liberty to re-approach the court within three months if trial progress was not made. Alleging no progress in trial, the petitioner filed a second bail application before the sessions court, which was again rejected, leading to the present petition. The coordinate Bench's earlier order extensively discussed the principles of bail jurisprudence, emphasizing that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 could override the restrictive twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA where there is long incarceration and trial delay not attributable to the accused. It relied on decisions of the Supreme Court in Manish Sisodia v. CBI, Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, and others, noting that Section 436A CrPC applies to PMLA offences and that 'bail is rule, jail is exception'. The present court was called upon to consider these principles in light of the petitioner's continued custody and the status of the trial. The judgment excerpt provided does not include the final decision or ratio.
Headnote
A) Right to Speedy Trial - Bail Jurisprudence - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right emanating from Article 21, and prolonged pre-trial incarceration without timely trial constitutes a violation of this right (Para 3.3) B) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 45 - Bail Conditions - The twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA for granting bail may be relaxed when there is long incarceration and delay in trial not attributable to the accused, as the constitutional mandate for speedy trial overrides statutory restrictions (Para 3.3) C) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 45 - Bail - Applicability of Section 436A CrPC - Section 436A CrPC, which provides for release of undertrial prisoners on personal bond upon serving half the maximum imprisonment, applies to PMLA offences, as it effectuates the right to speedy trial under Article 21 (Para 3.3) D) Bail Jurisprudence - Principle of Bail as Rule, Jail as Exception - Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, even in economic offences; mere seriousness of the charge does not justify automatic denial of bail when trial is delayed and accused has been in custody for a long period (Para 3.3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner should be enlarged on regular bail under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in light of prolonged pre-trial incarceration and delay in trial, considering the right to speedy trial under Article 21
Law Points
- Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution
- Section 436A CrPC effectuates right to speedy trial
- Detention before guilt should not become punishment without trial
- In cases of long incarceration and delayed trial not attributable to accused
- bail may be granted despite Section 45 PMLA
- Constitutional mandate overrides statutory restrictions on bail
