Supreme Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Citing Trial Delay & Long Custody, Distinguishes Recent Precedent

Citing prolonged incarceration and the likelihood of delay in the completion of the trial, the Supreme Court recently granted bail to the accused in a money laundering case. 

The bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing the plea of Udhaw Singh, who had been in custody for 14 months. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) had listed 225 witnesses for examination, yet only one has been examined so far.

In this context, the judgment authored by Justice Oka relied on the cases of Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb and V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, where the Court held that prolonged incarceration under draconian statutes like UAPA and Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), particularly when the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable timeframe, could violate Article 21, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial. Ruling in both cases underscores the responsibility of Constitutional Courts to exercise their authority to grant bail in such circumstances, even in light of the strict bail provisions under stringent laws like PMLA or UAPA.

Moreover, the interesting facet of the case was that the bench clarified the recent order passed by the bench led by Justice Bela M Trivedi in the case of Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad, where the Court, citing non-fulfillment of twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA, canceled the bail granted to the PMLA accused. In Kanhaiya Prasad, the Court stated that the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA were mandatory and disapproved of Courts granting bail in such cases in a casually, since money laundering was a serious offence.

While granting bail in the present case, the bench le by Justice Oka provided an explanation or interpretation of why the Justice Trivedi-led bench might have reached the decision it did in the Kanhaiya Prasad case.

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) relied on the order passed in Kanhaiya Kumar's case to oppose the Appellant's bail plea. However, the Court clarified that the factual circumstances in Kanhaiya Kumar's case were different, as the accused in that matter had been in custody for a significantly shorter period (less than seven months) and there was no finding of unreasonable delay in the trial. 

In justifying its decision in Kanhaiya Kumar's case, the Court explained why the precedents set in V. Senthil Balaji and K.A. Najeeb were not applied there. Since the accused had not been subjected to prolonged incarceration and the trial was progressing without undue delay, the Court held that the principles established in Senthil Balaji and K.A. Najeeb were not relevant to that case.

“Our attention is invited to a decision of a coordinate Bench in the case of Union of India through the Assistant Director v. Kanhaiya Prasad. After having perused the judgment, we find that this was a case where the decisions of this Court in the case of Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb and in the case of V.Senthil Balaji were not applicable on facts. Perhaps that is the reason why these decisions were not placed before the coordinate Bench. The respondent-accused therein was arrested on 18th September, 2023 and the High Court granted him bail on 6th May, 2024. He was in custody for less than 7 months before he was granted bail. There was no fining recorded that the trial is not likely to be concluded in a reasonable time. In the facts of the case, this Court cancelled the bail granted by the High Court. Therefore, there was no departure made from the law laid down in the case of Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb and V.Senthil Balaji.”, the court observed.

Moreover, the Solicitor General extended a concession stating that the decision passed in V. Senthil Balaji's case may be followed. The Court paved the way for release of the appellant.

Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed.

Case Title: UDHAW SINGH VS. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.799 OF 2025

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 229

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. M. R. Shamshad, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Yadav, AOR Mr. Syed Tamjeed Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Mihir Joshi, Adv. Mr. Advait Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Dawneesh Shaktivats, Adv. Mr. Arijit Sarkar, Adv. Ms. Shaoni Das, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tushar Mehta,S.G. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Hitarth Raja, Adv. Mr. Alankar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Aditi Singh, Adv.