Robin Khandelwal, S/o Sri. Naresh Kumar Khandelwal vs Directorate Of Enforcement

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Kar) 899

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.
Sri Robin Khandelwal, S/o Sri. Naresh Kumar Khandelwal – Petitioner
Versus
Directorate Of Enforcement – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 13669 Of 2026, Criminal Petition No. 13670 Of 2026
Decided On : 30-09-2026

Important Points

Bail may be granted under PMLA if the trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time and the accused has cooperated, as prolonged incarceration for documentary-based offences violates the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail

Act Referred

PREVENTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING ACT : S.3, S.4, S.45, S.50
BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA : S.483
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT : S.66, S.66(c), S.66(d)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.120(b), S.3, S.379, S.384, S.419, S.420, S.465, S.468, S.471

Headnote

(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3, 4, 45 and 50 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Regular bail - Accused arrested under PMLA based on predicate offences under IT Act and IPC - Trial at pre-cognizance stage with a large volume of charge-sheet documents (8103 pages) and 10 witnesses - Possibility of trial concluding in the near future is remote - Maximum punishment for the offence is seven years - Bail is the rule and jail is the exception - Stringent conditions under Section 45 of the Act cannot be used to incarcerate an accused without trial for an unreasonably long time, as it would violate the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (Paras 12 and 14).

(B) Cooperation and Conduct - Petitioners cooperated with the investigation and were enlarged on bail in predicate offences with similar allegations - No evidence of misusing bail conditions or tampering with evidence - Documentary evidence already in custody of prosecution agency reduces risk of tampering (Paras 6, 7 and 8).

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, Accused Nos. 1 and 3, were arrested on 08.05.2026 in connection with ECIR/BGZO/01/2021 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, 2002. This followed predicate offences registered between 2017 and 2020, in which the petitioners had already been granted bail. They had cooperated with the investigation, and a complaint was filed on 06.07.2026. The case is currently at the pre-cognizance stage, and the trial is expected to be prolonged due to the volume of documents and witnesses.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the apprehension of the respondent regarding the shifting of proceeds of crime was not justified as the petitioners had not misused bail in previous cases. Given the documentary nature of the evidence and the likelihood of a prolonged trial, continued incarceration would be unjust.

Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular bail considering the delay in the commencement of the trial and their prior cooperation with the investigating agency.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that constitutional courts can exercise jurisdiction to grant bail if there is no possibility of the trial concluding within a reasonable time, regardless of statutory thresholds like Section 45 of the PMLA, to prevent the violation of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Result: Criminal Petitions allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri Sandesh J Chouta, Sr. Counsel For Sri Gaurav N, Adv.)
For the Respondent: Sri Madhu N Rao, Adv.

1. Bail petitions under Section 483 BNSS for PMLA offences pending pre-cognizance before Special Court. (Para 1 )

ORDER :

S VISHWAJITH SHETTY, J.

1. Accused nos.1 & 3 in ECIR/BGZO/01/2021 registered by the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, pending before the Court of Prl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for PMLA cases, Bengaluru City, are before this Court in these two petitions filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent who has filed statement of objections opposing the bail petitions.

3. Petitioners herein were arrested on 08.05.2026 by the respondent in ECIR/BGZO/01/2021 registered for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, 'Act of 2002). Their bail application filed before the Court of Special Judge was rejected, and therefore, they are before this Court.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the cases relating to predicate offences were registered between the year 2017 and 2020. In all the said cases, petitioners have been enlarged on bail. Subsequently, two separate ECIR cases were registered in the year 2020 and 2021. Petitioners were not arrested in the ECIR case registered in the year 2020 and after filing of complaint in the said case, petitioners had appeared before the Trial Court pursuant to the summons received and were enlarged on regular bail. In the present case which was registered in the year 2021, petitioners have throughout cooperated for the purpose of investigation and inspite of the same, on 08.05.2026 they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. After completing investigation, prosecution complaint is now filed on 06.07.2026. The case before the Trial Court is at pre-cognizance stage. Considering the volume of charge sheet and the number of charge-sheet witnesses, the chances of trial being completed in the near soon is very remote. The maximum punishment for the alleged offence is imprisonment for a period of seven years. Under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted regular bail. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement - (2020)13 SCC 791, Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement - (2024)12 SCC OnLine 2626, V. Senthil Balaji vs Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, Padam Chand Jain vs Enforcement Directorate - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1291 and Arvind Dham vs Directorate of Enforcement - (2026) 7 SCC 330.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that statement of the accused recorded under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 is admissible in law. Considering the seriousness of the allegations found against the accused and also having regard to the twin conditions in Section 45 of the Act of 2002, the prayer made by the petitioners is liable to be rejected. He submits that, although the final report has been filed in the present case, the proceeds of crime have not yet been completely traced. Therefore, in the event the petitioners are enlarged on bail, the possibility of they misusing, or otherwise shifting the proceeds of crime from the present location, cannot be ruled out. He accordingly, prays to dismiss the petitions.

6. FIR in Crime No.153/2020 was registered against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 66, 66(C), 66(D) of IT Act and Sections 3, 120B, 379, 465, 468, 471, 419, 420 and 384 of IPC, based on which, subsequently in the year 2021, the present ECIR case was registered against the petitioners. It is not in dispute that petitioners have been enlarged on bail in Crime No.153/2020 and also in other cases registered for predicate offences with similar allegations. It is also not in dispute that prior to the registration of the present ECIR case, the r