Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(HP) 489

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Arvind Rajta - Applicant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement (ED) - Respondent
CrMP(M) No. 2795 of 2025
Decided On : 05-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Pritika Thakur, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Advocate with Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Mr. Surila Sangam and Ms. Ananya Srivastava, Advocates.

In PMLA cases, constitutional courts grant bail despite Section 45 twin conditions if prolonged incarceration (over two years), trial delay not attributable to accused, and no reasonable trial conclusion prospect violate Article 21 speedy trial right.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3, 4, 19, 44, 45 - Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Bail in money laundering proceedings - Twin conditions under Section 45 - Applicant in custody over two years and four months - Trial at charge consideration stage with 71 witnesses and 31,608 pages of documents in complaint; supplementary complaints list 132 witnesses and 83,547 documents - Predicate offence trial also pending charge framing - Delay not attributable to applicant - Rigours of Section 45 melt down where no likelihood of trial conclusion in reasonable time and incarceration exceeds substantial part of maximum sentence (seven years); constitutional courts intervene to protect Article 21 speedy trial right notwithstanding statutory restrictions. (Paras 24, 34, 35, 41, 48)

(B) Constitutional Law - Article 21 - Speedy trial and personal liberty - Stringent bail provisions in special statutes like PMLA harmonized with constitutional jurisdiction - Prolonged pre-trial detention without accused fault, voluminous evidence ensuring protracted trial, permits bail grant; economic offences seriousness weighed against right to liberty pre-conviction. (Paras 35-44, 46)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, dealing assistant in scholarship branch, accused of dishonestly verifying false claims under post-matric scheme for disadvantaged students, failing to note irregularities like course/caste changes and incomplete uploads, holding meetings for cash, forming shell entities via wife and associates to claim/release funds using forged documents, concealing proceeds by transfers and investments in property/businesses controlled through relatives. PMLA case registered on predicate FIR investigated by CBI alleging misappropriation of over Rs.200 crore scholarship funds by officials, institutions, banks. Applicant arrested after prior custody/release in predicate case; multiple prosecution complaints filed naming applicant. Seeks bail citing trial delay, long custody, prior interim bails not misused, undertakings offered.

Findings of Court:
No role of applicant in causing trial delay via adjournments sought by co-accused; prospects of trial commencement/conclusion bleak given witnesses/documents volume and predicate proceedings stage; twin conditions under Section 45 satisfied considering custody duration; bail granted on personal bond with sureties subject to stringent conditions including attendance, no tampering/evasion/influence, monthly affidavits, India restriction.

Issues: Whether delay in charge framing/trial attributable to applicant; satisfaction of Section 45 twin conditions amid prolonged custody and complex trial; applicability of prior bail rejections where circumstances changed via extended incarceration and stalled progress.

Ratio Decidendi: Where PMLA trial unlikely to conclude reasonably soon due to evidentiary magnitude, not accused fault, and custody substantial relative to maximum punishment, constitutional courts exercise Article 226 power to grant bail, deeming applicant prima facie not guilty and unlikely to reoffend under conditions, prioritizing Article 21 over statutory stringency.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Table of Content
1. pmla ecir originates from cbi predicate offence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. prolonged delay violates speedy trial right. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. prior bails not misused; conditions acceptable. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. accused central in scholarship scam, money laundering. (Para 21 , 22)
5. pmla section 45 twin conditions mandatory initially. (Para 24 , 25 , 26)

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Applicant-Arvind Rajta has filed the present application, under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’), with a prayer to release him, on bail, during the pendency of the trial, in case No. ECIR/SHSZO/04/2019, dated 22.07.2019, registered with the Enforcement Directorate Office (ED), Sub-Zonal Office, Rani Villa, Bagrian House, Strawberry Hills, Chhota Shimla, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.

2. According to the applicant, the said ECIR was registered on the basis of the source information of case FIR No. 133 of 2018, registered with Police Station East and RC registered by CBI, vide RC 0962019S0002, dated 7th March, 2019, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, read with Sections 13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. The investigation of FIR No. 133 of 2018 was, thereafter, handed over to CBI and searches and seizures from 22 private institutions were conducted. During investigation of the case by CBI, the applicant was arrested and released on bail, vide order, dated 24th September, 2020, passed in CrMP (M) No. 1040 of 2020.

4. According to the applicant, the CBI has filed the charge sheet in twelve cases, including the case, related to the present ECIR in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge (CBI), Shimla.

5. As per the stand taken by the applicant, after the investigation, in the present ECIR, the ED has filed the complaint, under Sections 44 and 45 of the PMLA, before the learned Special Judge (PMLA) and the case is now listed for consideration on charge.

6. It is the case of the applicant that there are hundreds of witnesses, in the CBI challans, apart from the thousands of documents, which are being relying upon. According to the applicant, in the supplementary challans, filed in the present ECIR, up till today, there are 132 witnesses apart from 83547 documents, relied upon, which are to be proved by the respondent-Department.

7. It is the further case of the applicant that he is being deprived of his fundamental right of speedy trial and he is in custody since 30th August, 2023, i.e. more than two years, without there being any progress in the ECIR, as well as, in the trial of the predicate offence, which is pending adjudication before the CBI Court, Shimla.

8. It is the stand of the applicant that the trial is being delayed, without any fault on the part of the applicant and he is entitled to be released on bail, on the ground of delay in trial.

9. According to the applicant, the trial of the present complaint is going to take a considerable time and certainly years together and the stringent provisions of Section 45 of the PMLA cannot become a tool, which can be used to incarcerate the applicant, without trial.

10. As per the further case of the applicant, there is no evidence on record, collected by the investigating agency to show the involvement of the applicant, as, instead of collecting the evidence, the respondent-Department has created evidence to implicate him.

11. It is the specific case of the applicant that he has been arrayed as an accused, in this complaint, in the supplementary complainants, being filed from time to time, on the allegations that the applicant, in the capacity of public servant, i.e. Dealing Assistant, in the Scholarship Branch of the Department of Higher Education, for the scholarship, under PMS Scheme, for SC/ST/OBC students of H.P., has verified all the claims made by 28 institutions, without pointing out the irregularities, inclu