1. Prosecution under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 — Predicate offences — Application for bail after prolonged incarceration. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 971
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ujjal Bhuyan, K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.
Sant Kumar Sinha – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.15177-15178/2024 With SLP(Crl) No. 2679/2025 (II-A), SLP(Crl) No. 5905/2025 (II-A)
Decided On : 24-06-2025
Important Points
Prolonged pre-trial detention without charge framing is a significant factor for granting bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, prioritizing liberty in cases of extended custody.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Application
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - The petitioner was named as an accused in multiple cases implicating predicate offences, leading to an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate - Petitioner’s prolonged incarceration without charge framing was addressed - Petitioner granted bail considering the maximum sentence under PMLA is seven years. (Paras 3, 5)
(B) Bail - Long custody without charges considered a fit ground for bail with conditions imposed. (Paras 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is in custody concerning predicate offences since 29.10.2021, 07.08.2021, and 11.08.2023 without charges framed. The refusal of bail by the Patna High Court was contested in this Special Leave Petition.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the exceptional circumstance of long incarceration warranted bail due to the absence of trial commencement and the maximum sentence being seven years.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the justification for the denial of bail and the implications of prolonged pre-trial detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention without charge framing is a significant factor in considering bail applications, necessitating a more careful judicial response.
Result: Petitioner granted bail with conditions.
(B) Bail - Long custody without charges considered a fit ground for bail with conditions imposed. (Paras 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is in custody concerning predicate offences since 29.10.2021, 07.08.2021, and 11.08.2023 without charges framed. The refusal of bail by the Patna High Court was contested in this Special Leave Petition.
Findings of Court:
The Court determined that the exceptional circumstance of long incarceration warranted bail due to the absence of trial commencement and the maximum sentence being seven years.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the justification for the denial of bail and the implications of prolonged pre-trial detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that prolonged pre-trial detention without charge framing is a significant factor in considering bail applications, necessitating a more careful judicial response.
Result: Petitioner granted bail with conditions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, AOR, Mr. R.K. Sinha, Adv., Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv., Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, AOR, Mr. Ritesh Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv., Mr. Niranjan Swami, Adv., Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv., Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR, Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Adv., Mr. Bhishm Pratap Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv., Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv., Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv., Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv., Mr. Mrigank Pathak, Adv., Mr. Alankar Gupta, Adv., Mr. Animesh Upadhyay, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, AOR, Mr. R.K. Sinha, Adv., Mr. Shashank Singh, Adv., Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, AOR, Mr. Ritesh Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar, Adv., Mr. Niranjan Swami, Adv., Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv., Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, AOR, Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Adv., Mr. Bhishm Pratap Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Samrat Goswami, Adv., Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv., Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv., Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv., Mr. Mrigank Pathak, Adv., Mr. Alankar Gupta, Adv., Mr. Animesh Upadhyay, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Bail application — Prolonged incarceration — Charges not yet framed. (Para 4 )
3. Long incarceration — Maximum statutory sentence of seven years under PMLA — Justification for bail. (Para 5 )
4. Prolonged incarceration combined with a seven-year maximum statutory sentence under the PMLA — Ground for granting bail. (Para 5 )
5. Petitioners directed to be released on bail in the PMLA cases upon appropriate terms and conditions. (Para 5 )
6. Does prolonged incarceration and the statutory maximum sentence influence the grant of bail under the PMLA?
Yes, the court held that long incarceration, especially when the maximum sentence under the PMLA is seven years and charges have not yet been framed, makes the accused a fit candidate for bail. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. Does the gender of the accused play a role in bail considerations under the PMLA?
Yes, the court specifically noted the petitioner's status as a lady, alongside long incarceration and the maximum statutory sentence, as a factor in granting bail. (Para 5 )
8. Does the delay in framing charges and the non-commencement of trial support the grant of bail?
Yes, the court considered the fact that charges had not yet been framed and the trial had not commenced as relevant factors in granting bail to the petitioners. (Para 4 , 5 )
ORDER :
SLP(Crl) Nos. 15177-15178/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Zoheb Hussain, learned standing counsel for the respondent(s)/Enforcement Directorate.
2. These Special Leave Petitions are directed against the orders dated 21.06.2023 and 23.08.2024 passed by the Patna High Court rejecting the bail application of the petitioner.
3. Be it stated that petitioner has been named as an accused in a number of cases involving predicate offence. On that basis, Enforcement Directorate (ED) commenced investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, `PMLA’) whereafter the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) came to be filed. Finally, prosecution complaint was filed by the ED on which cognizance has been taken by the Special Court. In this case, petitioner is in custody in connection with the predicate offence since 29.10.2021.
4. On a query by the Court, learned counsel for the parties have informed that charges have not yet been framed, not to speak of the trial commencing.
5. Having regard to the long incarceration of the petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence under PMLA is seven years, we are of the view that present is a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail insofar as the PMLA case is concerned. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner may be produced before the learned Special Court within a maximum period of seven days from today, who shall thereafter release the petitioner on bail on appropriate terms and conditions.
6. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.
7. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
SLP(Crl) No. 2679/2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Zoheb Hussain, learned standing counsel for the respondent(s)/Enforcement Directorate.
2. This Special Leave Petition is directed against the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the Patna High Court rejecting the bail application of the petitioner.
3. Be it stated that petitioner has been named as an accused in a number of cases involving predicate offence. On that basis, Enforcement Directorate (ED) commenced investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, `PMLA’) whereafter the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) came to be filed. Finally, prosecution complaint was filed by the ED on which cognizance has been taken by the Special Court. In this case, petitioner is in custody in connection with the predicate offence since 07.08.2021.
4. On a query by the Court, learned counsel for the parties have informed that charges have not yet been framed, not to speak of the trial commencing.
5. Having regard to the long incarceration of the petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the maximum sentence under PMLA is seven years, we are of the view that present is a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail insofar as the PMLA case is concerned. Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner may be produced before the learned Special Court within a maximum period of seven days from today, who shall thereafter release the petitioner on bail on appropriate terms and conditions.
6. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
7. Pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.
SLP(Crl) No. 5905/2025
1. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Shri Zoheb Hussain, learned standing counsel for the respondent(s)/Enforcement Directorate.
2. This Special Leave Petition is directed against the order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the Patna High Court rejecting the bail application of the petitioner.
3. Be it stated that petitioner has been named as an accused in a number of cases involving predicate offence. On that basis, Enforcement Directorate (ED) commenced investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, `PMLA’) whereafter the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) came to be filed. Finally, prosecution complaint was filed by the ED on which cognizance has been taken by the Special Court. In this case, the petiti
