PMLA Section 45 twin conditions relaxable by constitutional courts for bail if prolonged custody (over 2 years) and unlikely timely trial violate Article 21, absent accused delay, with voluminous documentary evidence.

Judgment :

Virender Singh, J.

By way of present application, filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’), applicant- Krishan Kumar has sought his release, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case No. ECIR/SHSZO/04/2019, dated 19.07.2019, registered with the Directorate of Enforcement, Sub-Zonal Office, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PMLA’).

2. According to the applicant, one FIR No. 133 of 2018, dated 16th November, 2018, was registered with Police Station East, Shimla, on the complaint made by State Project Officer, Department of Higher Education, Shimla, H.P., alleging financial irregularities regarding distribution of Pre-matric and Post-matric Scholarships (PMS) to SC/ST/OBC/MC students of the State, under Central Sponsored and State Sponsored Schemes.

3. It is the case of the applicant that subsequently, the investigation of the said FIR was entrusted to CBI, leading to registration of RC 0962019S0002, dated 7th May, 2019, under Section 120B read with Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, and Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. The scheduled offences, under which, CBI registered the FIR, are stated to have been mentioned in a schedule appended to the PMLA, hence, Directorate of Enforcement (hereinafter referred to as ‘ED’) initiated inquires under PMLA and after recording brief facts of scheduled offence, a case, bearing No. ECIR No. SHSZO/04/2019 dated 22nd July, 2019, was registered by the ED, against several persons, including the applicant.

5. The relief of bail has been sought on the ground that the applicant is innocent and is not having any connection with the alleged allegations, as, the allegations against him are false and he has nothing to do with the alleged offences.

6. According to the applicant, now, the investigation of the case is completed and the challan has been filed, before the learned trial Court.

7. As per the stand of the applicant, the evidence, so collected, is too fragile to support of the case of the ED.

8. It is the case of the applicant that there are no reasonable grounds to believe that he will tamper with the prosecution evidence or will abscond, if released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

9. According to the applicant, he had filed regular bail applications, before this Court, bearing CrMPs(M) No. 48 of 2024 and 1868 of 2024, which were dismissed, vide orders, dated 31st May, 2024 and 8th November, 2024, respectively.

10. The applicant has also given the details of the bail applications, filed by him, before this Court, wherein he has been ordered to be released on interim bail, to contend that he has not abused the liberty granted to him, at any point of time, in the past.

11. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that after dismissal of his bail application, by this Court, he had filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which came to be disposed of, vide order, dated 25th March, 2025.

12. Thereafter, the applicant had approached the learned trial Court, as per the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by filing a regular bail application, which came to be rejected, vide order dated 27th December, 2025.

13. It has also been argued on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the applicant that the applicant is also entitled to the relief of bail, on the gr