Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1726

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIRENDER SINGH, J.
Hitesh Gandhi - Applicant
Versus
Enforcement Directorate Office (ED) - Respondent
CrMP(M) No. : 2558 of 2025
Decided On : 20-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant :Mr. Jyotirmay Bhatt, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Advocate (through VC), with Mr. Ajeet Singh Saklani, Ms. Ananya Srivastava, Advocates.

Constitutional courts may relax PMLA Section 45 twin conditions for bail when prolonged incarceration and unlikely timely trial due to voluminous evidence violate Article 21 speedy trial rights.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 483 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Sections 3, 4, 19, 45 - Bail application during trial pendency - Applicant in custody over two years and four months in money laundering case linked to predicate corruption offences involving scholarship fund misappropriation - Trial at charge framing stage with 71 witnesses and over 31,000 pages of documents - No delay attributable to applicant - Prolonged incarceration and unlikelihood of timely trial conclusion justify relaxation of Section 45 twin conditions by constitutional courts to protect Article 21 rights to speedy trial and liberty - Bail is rule and jail exception even in economic offences - Applicant not guilty at this stage and unlikely to commit offence on bail with conditions - Bail granted subject to stringent conditions including regular court appearance, no evidence tampering, no witness influence, no foreign travel without permission, monthly affidavits. (Paras 18-46)

(B) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Speedy trial and personal liberty - Statutory rigours like Section 45 of money laundering law harmonized with constitutional powers - Where trial unlikely to conclude reasonably soon due to voluminous documentary evidence, numerous witnesses, and pending predicate trial, pre-trial detention cannot become punishment - Delay by co-accused not attributable to applicant - Passport surrender and prior interim bails non-abuse indicate low flight risk. (Paras 22-36)

Facts of the case:
Applicant, holding administrative position in educational institutions, accused of supervising fraudulent scholarship claims under post-matric scheme for reserved category students, including ghost students, course alterations, and category changes, leading to proceeds of crime diverted through joint accounts - Predicate case registered for criminal breach, forgery, cheating, corruption - Arrested under money laundering provisions after recorded reasons to believe - Charge sheet filed, cognizance taken - Prior bail applications dismissed but liberty granted by apex court to renew - Trial court rejected fresh application - Applicant claims innocence, offers undertakings.

Findings of Court:
Twin conditions under Section 45 satisfied in favour due to long custody and trial prognosis - No bright chances of trial commencement or conclusion soon - Bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- with two sureties - Subject to conditions; observations not on merits; liberty to respondent to seek cancellation on violation.

Issues: Maintainability of successive bail applications without change in circumstances; whether trial delay caused by applicant or co-accused; applicability of Section 45 twin conditions post-prolonged incarceration; balancing economic offence gravity with constitutional liberty rights; risk of evidence tampering or witness influence.

Ratio Decidendi: Constitutional courts exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant bail overriding statutory restrictions where incarceration exceeds substantial part of potential sentence, trial prolongation not attributable to accused, and no societal threat on bail - Voluminous record and predicate trial delay render Section 45 rigours inapplicable to prevent Article 21 violation - Documentary-heavy case poses low tampering risk amenable to conditions.

Result: Bail application allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the following key points are relevant for understanding the legal considerations related to the bail application of Hitesh Gandhi:

Nature of the Case and Charges: The case involves allegations of involvement in a large-scale scholarship scam and money laundering, with the applicant accused of supervising fraudulent claims and diverting funds. The charges are serious, and the investigation involves extensive documentary evidence and multiple witnesses (!) (!) (!) .
Custody and Trial Stage: The applicant has been in custody for over two years and four months, with the trial at an early stage, primarily at the stage of supply of documents and witnesses. The charges have not yet been framed, and the commencement and conclusion of the trial appear to be distant (!) (!) (!) .
Delay in Trial and Right to Speedy Trial: The prolonged incarceration without trial conclusion raises constitutional concerns about the right to a speedy trial and personal liberty. Multiple judgments emphasize that indefinite detention in such circumstances can violate Article 21 of the Constitution (!) (!) (!) .
Conditions for Bail and Previous Orders: The applicant's earlier bail applications were dismissed based on the non-fulfillment of conditions under Section 45 of the relevant law. However, given the significant delay and the likelihood that the trial will not conclude in the near future, the Court considers that the twin conditions for bail are satisfied in this case (!) (!) .
Likelihood of Trial Concluding Soon: The volume of evidence, number of witnesses, and stage of proceedings suggest that the trial is unlikely to be completed in the near future, strengthening the case for bail on grounds of constitutional rights and delay (!) (!) (!) .
Conditions for Release: The Court proposes imposing appropriate conditions, such as regular attendance, non-interference with evidence, no influence on witnesses, travel restrictions, and disclosure of any other cases, to mitigate concerns related to influence and tampering (!) .
Legal Framework and Principles: The provisions under the relevant law (Section 45 of PMLA) require the Court to assess the twin conditions before granting bail. The Court recognizes that these conditions can be relaxed in cases where trial delays are substantial, and the applicant has spent considerable time in custody without trial progress. The constitutional mandate for a speedy trial and personal liberty takes precedence in such scenarios (!) (!) (!) .
Overall Conclusion: Considering the lengthy custody, early stage of trial, voluminous evidence, and the constitutional right to a speedy trial, the Court finds that the twin conditions for bail are satisfied. Accordingly, the bail application is likely to be granted, subject to appropriate conditions to ensure compliance and prevent interference with the ongoing investigation and trial proceedings (!) (!) .

Please note that this summary is based solely on the provided document and does not include specific case law references.

Table of Content
1. bail application post prolonged judicial custody (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. prior bail history shows no liberty abuse (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. ed alleges scholarship scam involvement (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
4. ed opposes bail citing prior dismissals (Para 16 , 17)
5. trial delay not attributable to applicant (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
6. precedents favor bail in protracted trials (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
7. pmla trial awaits predicate offence resolution (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
8. long custody relaxes pmla twin conditions (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 40)
9. bail granted subject to conditions (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)

JUDGMENT :

Virender Singh, J.

Applicant-Hitesh Gandhi 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, he remained in judicial custody for almost three years.

3. As per the applicant, the case of the prosecution is based on the alleged documents, which are already in the possession of the ED.

4. The charge sheet is also stated to have been filed before the learned Special Judge, Shimla, upon which, cognizance has been taken by the Court.

5. According to the applicant, he had filed regular bail application, before this Court, bearing CrMP (M) No. 2636 of 2025, which was dismissed, vide order, dated 12th January, 2024.

6. The applicant has also given the details of the earlier 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.

7. It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that he had filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which came to be disposed of, vide order, dated 25th March, 2025.

8. 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 15th October, 2025.

9. According to the applicant, his passport has already been handed over to the CBI.

10. Contending that the applicant is innocent and has committed no offence and has falsely been implicated, in the present case, it is the case of the applicant that he has been arrested on the basis of convenient presumption on the part of the ED and such presumption cannot be the basis for keeping the applicant in custody.

11. Apart from this, the applicant has given certain undertakings, for which, he is ready to abide by, in case, he is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial.

12. On the basis of the above submissions, a prayer has been made to allow the bail application.

13. When put to notice, the reply, on behalf of the ED, has been filed, mentioning therein, that the applicant has been arrested, as per the procedure prescribed under Section 19 of the PMLA.

14. The necessary facts, giving rise to the present case, as mentioned by the ED, are as under:

14.1. The CBI had registered RC0962019A0002, dated 7th May, 2019, under Sections 409, 419, 465, 466, 467 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’).

14.2. As per the case set up by CBI, the applicant, who is Vice Chairman of KC Group of Institutes, Pandoga, Una, H.P., has wrongly claimed the scholarship of the students belonging to certain class, who, without completing the concerned course, left the institute. After registration of the FIR by the CBI, the case was taken up by the Directora