1. Petition for bail in a matter concerning defalcation of funds in tender awards under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. (Para 1 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1398
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH AND K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Padam Chand Jain – Appellant
Versus
Enforcement Directorate – Respondent
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 17476/2024 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-12-2024 in SBCRMBA No. 12518/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur]
Decided on : 16-01-2025
The Court held that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA cannot override constitutional safeguards under Article 21. Prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be converted into a sentence without trial, particularly when evidence is documentary and co-accused have already been granted bail.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 45 - Bail application - The petitioner involved in a defalcation case of Rs.136.41 Crores regarding tender management - Court examined bail precedents including that for the petitioner's son - Applied the ruling in a prior case regarding rights under Article 21 - The Court granted bail noting extensive documentation and witness requirements that precluded the risk of tampering. (Paras 4, 6, 7, 9)
(B) Constitutional Law - Article 21 - The Court reaffirmed that prolonged incarceration cannot convert pre-trial detention into an effective sentence. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner seeks bail related to serious financial misconduct involving tender fraud, claiming a similar role to other co-accused who have been granted bail.
Findings of Court:
Balancing the severity of the charges and the particulars of the evidence presented, the Court found sufficient grounds to grant bail.
Issues: The main issue involved whether the bail conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA warrant denial given the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that the constitutional safeguards cannot be overridden, and prolonged detention cannot be justified without trial.
Result: Bail granted.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner seeks bail on grounds of parity; respondent contends the seriousness of the role and the mandatory nature of twin conditions under Section 45, PMLA. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Court observed parity with co-accused, the documentary nature of evidence preventing tampering, and the petitioner's release in predicate offences. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Twin conditions under Section 45, PMLA cannot override Article 21 constitutional safeguards; prolonged pre-trial detention cannot be converted into a sentence without trial. (Para 7 )
5. Petition allowed and petitioner directed to be released on bail. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
6. Do the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA override constitutional safeguards under Article 21?
No, the court held that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA cannot override the constitutional safeguards provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (Para 7 )
7. Can prolonged pre-trial detention be treated as a sentence without trial?
No, the court held that prolonged incarceration cannot be permitted to convert pre-trial detention into a sentence without trial. (Para 7 )
8. What factors may the court consider when granting bail in PMLA cases where evidence is primarily documentary?
The court may consider whether the main evidence is documentary and already seized by the prosecution, reducing the possibility of tampering, and whether the accused has been released in predicate offences. (Para 7 , 8 )
ORDER :
1. This is a petition seeking bail.
2. We have heard Shri Sidharth Luthra and Shri Siddharth Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Suryaprakash V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent.
3. Shri Luthra and Shri Agrawal, learned senior counsel, submits that the other co-accused, who are assigned the similar role, have already been granted bail either by this Bench or by another Bench of this Court.
4. Shri Raju, on the contrary submits that the petitioner is involved in a crime of defalcation of huge sum of Rs.136.41 Crores in the matter of managing the award of tenders to PHED. He submits that the role attributed to the petitioner herein is of much serious nature as compared to the role attributed to Shri Peeyush Jain, who is the son of the present petitioner and Shri Sanjay Badaya. He further submits that unless the twin conditions contained in Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, 'PMLA') are complied with bail in the matters concerning PMLA cannot be granted.
5. We have perused the material on record in the present case. The son of the petitioner herein, namely, Shri Peeyush Jain has been granted bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.3754 of 2024 so also another accused, namely, Sanjay Badaya has been granted bail by this Court on 17.12.2024 in SLP(Crl) No.15953 of 2024.
6. Learned Single Judge of the High Court, while considering the law laid down by this Court in Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement , 2024 SCC OnLine 1920 , has observed that this Court has granted bail in the said matter in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
7. We may clarify that in the case of Manish Sisodia (supra) the Court has not exercised the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The Court has held that the twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA cannot override the constitutional safeguards, as provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court has held that a prolonged incarceration cannot be permitted to be converted pre-trial detention into a sentence without trial. Like in the case of Manish Sisodia (supra) in the present case also thousands of documents are required to be considered at the stage of trial, so also around 50 witnesses are required to be examined. The main evidence in the present case is documentary in nature, which is already seized by the prosecution agency. As such, there is no possibility of the same being tampered with.
8. It is further to be noted that the Minister, for whose benefit the alleged transactions have taken place, has also not been implecated as an accused in the present case. The petitioner has already been released on bail in the predicate offences.
9. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner herein.
10. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with Complaint Case dated 08.08.2024 in ECIR/JPZO/29/2023, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
11. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
